The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!
- Thread starter Professor Moriarty
- Start date
I see, so it's 'us against them' now, is it? And here I thought it was a friendly chat about concerns of the direction of our beloved franchise. I didn't realize that battle-lines had been drawn.
Strawman. I'm not living in the past, and at no time did I ever endore "It should be like the 1960s". That would be stupid. But aping the visual themes of a third-tier science-fiction show that looks like every other piece of science-fiction released since 1992 is hardly 'forward looking'.
I'm attacking what I've seen and read of the new project thus far, because I've found precious little to like about it.
On the other hand, YOU are deliberately misrepresenting arguments, attacking people at quite a personal level, etc, all to support a film that - as you just admitted - you actually know very little about.
Strawman, yet again.
Look to the future, stop living in the past.
I'm living in the future. Seems to me that removing what made Trek unique as a setting and replacing it with a rehash of BSG, B5, etc, is much more 'living in the past' than wanting to keep what made Trek both unique and successful as part of the franchise.
hutt359 said:
Please... you'll still go see it, you will just bolster about how you didn't and how it sucked.
You don't know me very well, do you, Sparky?
They've made some advancements in velour since the mid 60's, so why not? Stuff still looks damn good on camera.
I'd like to see more variations, but sure. After all, that was the style during that period of Star Trek.
The point is the design, not the materials used.
We're not talking about the planet scenes, we're talking about an established design in an established period being wildly, and unnecessarily, altered. Do pay attention, 007.
"Should the women be in one piece micro minis?'
"I'd like to see more variations, but sure. After all, that was the style during that period of Star Trek."
Do women in the military, and NASA wear micro minis?
Rmember, The Cage, and Where No Man Has Gone Before had female Starfleet officers...wear...P A N T S tm!
So, in Star Trek XI female Starfleet Officers must wear...
P A N T S tm!
"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."
Let's see 9/11, plastic wrapping, and duck taping will save us! tm.
Kids today have no idea tm.
:roll eyes:
"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?"
Let's see Razor, and a Season 4.
I don't see a Cancelled tm here.
Failure means its not camp. It's not made like it was in 1966.
Star Trek must appeal to the hardcore fans.
Remember how successful Nemesis and Enterprise were?
Oh, right....Enterprise was Cancelled tm.
Its 2008
Long live Star Trek!
:thumbsup:
"I'd like to see more variations, but sure. After all, that was the style during that period of Star Trek."
Do women in the military, and NASA wear micro minis?
Rmember, The Cage, and Where No Man Has Gone Before had female Starfleet officers...wear...P A N T S tm!
So, in Star Trek XI female Starfleet Officers must wear...
P A N T S tm!
"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."
Let's see 9/11, plastic wrapping, and duck taping will save us! tm.
Kids today have no idea tm.
:roll eyes:
"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?"
Let's see Razor, and a Season 4.
I don't see a Cancelled tm here.
Failure means its not camp. It's not made like it was in 1966.
Star Trek must appeal to the hardcore fans.
Remember how successful Nemesis and Enterprise were?
Oh, right....Enterprise was Cancelled tm.
Its 2008
Long live Star Trek!
:thumbsup:
Oddly, neither Enterprise nor Nemesis were made for 'hardcore fans'. In fact, the production teams for both of those projects went out of their way to say that it was to capture a 'new' audience , even if it meant alienating some of the 'old fan base'.
So, what was your point again?
So, what was your point again?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
hutt359 said:
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.
Gee, I seem to remember seeing plenty of shot-in-outdoors TOS eps, WHEN THEY HAD THE BUDGET TO DO IT.
By way of comparison on the features, when you'd think they had the money to shoot on location for Vulcan and Genesis, they wimped out and did it on the soundstage, ostensibly for control. In fact, I've seen papier mache (note the spelling) rocks in pretty much every trek movie that had a cave location.
As for skirts, I'm pretty sure this is in the era that predated the minis, since they didn't have the in WHERE NO MAN and the only mini in CAGE was some kind of off-duty wear.
You might want to review the actual SERIES and/or movies before making sweeping and incorrect comments about them. Or are you so busy looking to the future that you can't see the past (and perhaps will be condemned to repeat it at some point?)
One thing the various Trek productions have proved over the years is that saying you’re going to make a Trek film or TV series in a particular sort of way or for a particular type of audience does not necessarily mean that you have the slightest clue how to actually do it.
This is true. It's also true that the fact that two very different productions - Abrams' film and "Enterprise" - have made similar choices in several regards is in large part because the alternatives are not reasonable.
To cater to the hard-core Trek fan base, small as it's become, is to guarantee commercial failure. And to do it to the tune of 130 million dollars would be criminal irresponsibility where the stockholders of CBS and Paramount are concerned.
One might as well spend over 100 million dollars making a "Stargate SG-1" film or a similarly-budgeted film based on Ron Moore's "Battlestar Galactica" - they're both popular with a certain number of people, are reasonably well-regarded by lots of folks and are successful within limits that satisfy their studios and producers and networks, but no one has any reason to believe that an audience of sufficient size exists to make such a huge investment reasonable. And so, these days, with "Star Trek."
So, has anyone sketched up the whole ship yet? Like the fandom made practically a WHOLE MODEL of the Sovereign class ship by using one blurry dorsal view accidentally left in a TV interview in 1995?
Mark
Mark
That worked out well for them, eh?
The real problem with Bermanian TREK, as it evolved since the late 1980's, was creative. They just didn't put out stories of a quality level that made the shows compelling enough to sustain them long-term. I'm surprised Berman & Co. lasted as long as they did. If ENTERPRISE had started out with "First Flight" as their pilot episode, (excellent story) and progressed from there with quality stories in the like vein, the show probably could've stayed on the air to this day.
On to a different sub-topic in this thread:
I do not believe the image depicts a ship being constructed "on the ground" as some have speculated. It looks to me to be in the shadows of an orbital drydock, with the Earth directly astern of the under-construction ship. The vapors look to be put in there for dramatic effect, to make it look like the Big E is emerging from the mists of time, or whatever.
On to a different sub-topic in this thread:
I do not believe the image depicts a ship being constructed "on the ground" as some have speculated. It looks to me to be in the shadows of an orbital drydock, with the Earth directly astern of the under-construction ship. The vapors look to be put in there for dramatic effect, to make it look like the Big E is emerging from the mists of time, or whatever.
Hey Vance,
Interesting post.
I would expect that continuity in any TV franchise (especially a SciFi one, to be sure) is a difficult thing. When it comes to fandom, it isn't so much that a producer like Mr. Berman has to go out of his way to "respect" the fanbase by genuflecting to it, rather, he simply has to show some care to respect the body of already-done material as best he can by avoiding obvious contradictions and discontinuity.
Let's assume, just for a moment, that this new movie is "sold" to the audience as a canon-prequel. This would mean that if Kirk is in Starfleet academy as part of the story, then chances are the Enterprise has already been built and in-flight for a while. (It was supposedly launched 20 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before", IIRC) So if Kirk is a cadet in the film, Enterprise is either being refit or there's a major revision in continuity there. (Actually, the Microgamma lettering on the hull is equally irritating to me. Looks so 1979. Enough with the disco era! Let's get back to block lettering!)
Now, let's assume that the movie is a re-set/re-make/re-imagining. Okay, they can take liberty with the ship's appearance because they are starting a whole new canon. That's fine, but again, what do these "new" characters stand for? Are they is space to bring barroom brawls and waterboarding to strange new worlds? And why do we need disco-era lettering on the hull? Seems a little dated, but that's just me...
Now, let's assume a third possibility. Let's assume Abrams & Co. are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and that "this will be Roddenberry's TREK" and "we're re-imagining, just a little". (I'm not assuming they would actually say something that ridiculous, but that's the way it might happen.) So we have this semi-canon TREK that doesn't respect the continuity of TOS and doesn't really make a clean break, either.
The first possibility I could understand, if it is done with respect to TOS and it is a good and engaging story.
The second possibility could also be a good thing, but only if it respects the principles that TOS brought to light (Starfleet's professionalism and devotion to exploration, the Prime Directive, Kirk's drive to be a good captain and run a good ship, etc.). If a re-make does not do this, I don't see the point. It would amount to "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
The third possibility is actually a botched cross between the first two. Either the movie is a serious canon-prequel or it's a re-make. No hybrids, please. That would bastardize TOS and the notion of a re-make.
In any event, the saucer from the image in the trailer looks too much like TMP for my tastes. Let's take down the disco glitter ball, already. Up with block lettering! It's easier to take that seriously!
And by the way... The image Ptrope linked to is stunning. If you edit the URL, you'll find images numbered from 01 to 11. If Paramount is doing a canon-prequel and they want to dress up with Big E but do it with class, that's the way to do it! I only hope the studio matches a classic script with a classy Big E. If they do, they'll succeed. If they don't, well, there's always reruns...
Interesting post.
I would expect that continuity in any TV franchise (especially a SciFi one, to be sure) is a difficult thing. When it comes to fandom, it isn't so much that a producer like Mr. Berman has to go out of his way to "respect" the fanbase by genuflecting to it, rather, he simply has to show some care to respect the body of already-done material as best he can by avoiding obvious contradictions and discontinuity.
Let's assume, just for a moment, that this new movie is "sold" to the audience as a canon-prequel. This would mean that if Kirk is in Starfleet academy as part of the story, then chances are the Enterprise has already been built and in-flight for a while. (It was supposedly launched 20 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before", IIRC) So if Kirk is a cadet in the film, Enterprise is either being refit or there's a major revision in continuity there. (Actually, the Microgamma lettering on the hull is equally irritating to me. Looks so 1979. Enough with the disco era! Let's get back to block lettering!)
Now, let's assume that the movie is a re-set/re-make/re-imagining. Okay, they can take liberty with the ship's appearance because they are starting a whole new canon. That's fine, but again, what do these "new" characters stand for? Are they is space to bring barroom brawls and waterboarding to strange new worlds? And why do we need disco-era lettering on the hull? Seems a little dated, but that's just me...
Now, let's assume a third possibility. Let's assume Abrams & Co. are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and that "this will be Roddenberry's TREK" and "we're re-imagining, just a little". (I'm not assuming they would actually say something that ridiculous, but that's the way it might happen.) So we have this semi-canon TREK that doesn't respect the continuity of TOS and doesn't really make a clean break, either.
The first possibility I could understand, if it is done with respect to TOS and it is a good and engaging story.
The second possibility could also be a good thing, but only if it respects the principles that TOS brought to light (Starfleet's professionalism and devotion to exploration, the Prime Directive, Kirk's drive to be a good captain and run a good ship, etc.). If a re-make does not do this, I don't see the point. It would amount to "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
The third possibility is actually a botched cross between the first two. Either the movie is a serious canon-prequel or it's a re-make. No hybrids, please. That would bastardize TOS and the notion of a re-make.
In any event, the saucer from the image in the trailer looks too much like TMP for my tastes. Let's take down the disco glitter ball, already. Up with block lettering! It's easier to take that seriously!
And by the way... The image Ptrope linked to is stunning. If you edit the URL, you'll find images numbered from 01 to 11. If Paramount is doing a canon-prequel and they want to dress up with Big E but do it with class, that's the way to do it! I only hope the studio matches a classic script with a classy Big E. If they do, they'll succeed. If they don't, well, there's always reruns...
"I do not believe the image depicts a ship being constructed "on the ground" as some have speculated."
No...EVA...suits.
Oh wait...is this The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
Maybe they can hold their breath for 30 seconds.
See its Canon tm. :thumbsup:
No...EVA...suits.
Oh wait...is this The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
Maybe they can hold their breath for 30 seconds.
See its Canon tm. :thumbsup:
Paper maché. Note the spelling.
Apparently I have not kept myself up to date with Vektor's current projects. That ship is gorgeous! I would love to see this version of the gray lady on the big screen.
However, as previously posted on this board (or perhaps another), I fully expected to see Matt's base design shape to be retained and that's all as the surface details would be dramatically modified. That's basically what we have now. I didn't expect such a drastic change to the nacelles, that caught me off guard when I viewed the teaser.
I'm somewhat a purist at heart but with an open mind. I would like to see the entire vessel (not going to happen soon) but I accept what I have seen so far. I'm ok with it.
