The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[ChuckPR]

Wingsley said:
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.

The lack of pressure suits tells us that at the least there is a force field and some sort of gravity.

But the best evidence is that Trek lore has always been that the Enterprise was built in Starfleet's San Francisco Shipyards.

I would consider that to be a reasonable bow to the fans of Canon Trek.

While they would not have to follow the Treklore, I don't see it as a negative and would probably help endear them to the fans a bit, who might then look the other way a bit on things like an increase in the ship size.

But again, this is all a guess based on canon lore, but I see no reason why they wouldn't bow to tradition on this point.

 

[ChuckPR]

Ptrope said:

Starship Polaris said:
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.

This isn't true at all. Just because they came to the same trendy conclusions doesn't mean they bothered to explore the alternatives. Let's face it, Hollywood is filled with ex-waiter/ex-ecutives who latch onto what has been successful for someone else, and then insist that everything else should follow that formula. What I really don't understand is these same people's tendencies to option a well-known property, presumably because that property is recognized as having proven successful elsewhere, and then proceed to strip out the very things that set it apart from the rest of the chaff. In this case, how does making Star Trek resemble every other recent sci-fi production, including a number of Trek movies that weren't exactly blockbusters, constitute 'visionary' or 'radical' thinking? Bigger and busier aren't, by definition, better. And again, we come down to this: the 'unwashed masses" wouldn't know the difference between a reimagined Enterprise and a one like Vektor's, which maintains both the form and spirit of the original in a package that would be both classic and acceptable to those same 'unwashed masses' used to the high-tech style of recent films, and at the same time, his design clearly strikes a chord with a good representative sample of hardcore fans. Both sides win!

I don't really see that this math is all that hard to follow.

I agree 100%.

B & B lied about creating Enterprise as a wholely new series
that anyone could follow from the get-go.

Their "Temporal Cold War" three year plot line arch was about
as transparent as Britney Spears' panties!!!

It was a plot-gimmick excuse that allowed them to revert back
to using all the storyline and future-trek stylistic choices
that they never had any intention of not recycling.

Those two should have gotten the Nobel piece prize for
MOST LIKELY TO USE EVERY POSSIBLE SCI-FI PLOT GIMMICK KNOWN TO MAN IN A SINGLE SEASON!!!

They never hesitated to unravel entire episodes or previous plot lines via their obsession
with time travel and other grandiose gimmicks.

 

[Wingsley]

Arlo said:
Or just get a Mac and type option-e-e.

The only way I'd do it.

 

[Wingsley]

I agree with Ptrope.

There seems to be a line of thought in this thread that this is all about old-versus-new, conservative-versus-fresh start, continuity-versus-creativity. No, TOS gave us a show (and a fictional universe) based on ideas, on principles and on characters that stood for something. As with any TV show, it stumbled and had to cope with the limitations of its era. But TOS was special because its producers, writers and actors were hungry. They were taking a chance. The work they produced was so bold that all Paramount had to do was shoehorn in some CGI FX and now a 40-year-old TV show is wowing audiences again and selling new DVDs. How many TV shows of even half that age can manage such a feat?

Mr. Berman & Co. inherited STAR TREK after the franchise had already made a splash in reruns and four movies. They fumbled with the continuity, politicized the writing staff, and alot of people left. Still, there were a couple of young (and hungry) writers on board (Melinda Snodgrass and Ronald D. Moore among them) who kept TNG going with fresh ideas ("The Measure of a Man", "The Defector") that kept the franchise going for years after even they left. But Berman & Co. kept beating a dead horse. TNG begat DS9. DS9 begat VOY. VOY begat ENT. The continuity wasn't great, but it was there.

The point is, Rick Berman, Maurice Hurley and others were not hungry. They were not taking chances. They just hopped on the gravy train and rode it till it ran out of steam. (Or ideas.)

Will this Abrams do a good job with the new movie? I have no idea, but Hollywood's track record isn't promising with this kind of venture. People want to hold up Ronald D. Moore's GALACTICA as an example, but when it comes to re-makes that show is the exception, not the rule. And despite GALACTICA's success (ENT made it through a fourth season, too), it hasn't been without controversy. When I watched the "Pegasus" two-parter, I was convinced at least part of the show's appeal on cable arose from its shock value as essentially R-rated TV. Moore and company constantly dance on the edge with characters that exhibit wild and edgy behavior. If someone is intent on doing that with STAR TREK, it will be like throwing out all the principles, the ideals and the characters that made the show distinctive in the first place.

The image at the top of this thread does suggest something about this film. It will be different from all the other STAR TREK movies. I would (cautiously) welcome that. The image does leave a bad taste in my mouth, though. The saucer looks too much like TMP, "NCC" font and all. This is not 1979 anymore, and if this is supposed to be an ambitious effort, I would hope Abrams & Co. could do better than that.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Finally have a computer working at home. Should be able to conjure up a comparison pic soon.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?

I'm not even interested in pronouncing the movie "dead or alive."

I am, however, a great deal more excited by the opportunity to see a Trek movie made with the resources and imagination and dedication that Abrams and his team are clearly pouring into this than I am with the blessed "Star Trek Franchise" or the long-term commercial health thereof.

That said, all signs so far point to this being a better movie than (at most) one or two of the pre-Abrams Trek films.

 

[Vance]

ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?

This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?

 

[Nerroth]

Arlo said:
Jeffries, Joseph, Jein (what's with all the J's?)

Maybe they are all officers aboard the Enterprise-J...



As regards the ship model, it's interesting to note that looks like it has torp launchers on the dorsal primary hull.


Overall, I'll have to wait and see how things go - the images and the context of such will be clearer then.

 

[ST-One]

Vance said:

ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?

This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?

If you don't see it you will not be in a position to criticise it.

 

[Vance]

Again, that is a stupid statement. I'm not allowed to say "I'm not interested in seeing X because of Y?" unless I actually see 'X' even because of 'Y'?

Look, Trek has sucked in the last few years. This is also a re-imagining of a much beloved root of a much-beloved franchise. It's got a high bar to overcome. Neither the trailer nor the preview images have sold me on this movie.

It's stupid to demand my 'loyalty' for a branded product. I don't owe the fandom or the franchise anything. That's not it works. It's a product that Paramount has to sell to me, and they ain't done that yet.

 

[ST-One]

Vance said:
Again, that is a stupid statement. I'm not allowed to say "I'm not interested in seeing X because of Y?" unless I actually see 'X' even because of 'Y'?

Look, Trek has sucked in the last few years. This is also a re-imagining of a much beloved root of a much-beloved franchise. It's got a high bar to overcome. Neither the trailer nor the preview images have sold me on this movie.

It's stupid to demand my 'loyalty' for a branded product. I don't owe the fandom or the franchise anything. That's not it works. It's a product that Paramount has to sell to me, and they ain't done that yet.

Okay, you are not sold on (or at least gotten interested in) the new movie by the teaser.
You don't want to see the film becaus of certain things you can fix on the information we have now.
Good.
This still will not put you in a position to criticise the film when it comes out.

 

[Vance]

Again, your logic demands that I see the film, even if I don't believe I'll like it, just so I have the 'right' to criticize it.

It doesn't work that way.

It may not occur to you that a radical 'rewrite' of the Enterprise herself, a vessel that I've loved since I was a pre-schooler, is enough of a reason for me to not like the film, or at least enough to have me predisposed against the film.

If I'm not sold on the film by the time it comes out, I'm not going to go see it. It would be pretty stupid of me to do otherwise, wouldn't it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ST-One said:
If you don't see it you will not be in a position to criticise it.

This is, obviously, absolutely true. One can't meaningfully and honestly critique a movie, book or any other work if one hasn't seen or read it - or driven it, or whatever. Same principle applies, after all, to automobile road tests or consumer electronics evaluations or any other critique.

No one would pay a reviewer to write critiques without seeing a movie, because such a review would be dishonest and without value. Doing the same thing for free, as an expression of personal opinion, eliminates the aspect of ripping off an employer but doesn't validate the opinion with respect to its honesty or other positive values.

 

[ancient]

I have to agree here. See the movie to judge the movie. Pretty simple.

 

[Vance]

Right... because the world works that way.

So, before you can decide if you might like something or not, you HAVE to try it first. You have to commit the time, energy, whatever needed, BEFORE judging whether or not you commit the time, energy, and whatever's needed.

You don't live life this way, it's a completely stupid fanboi demand designed to do nothing at all except say 'well, you can't disagree with me'.

If you lot really walked this walk, your signatures wouldn't be filled with expectant praise of the movie, either. Why? Because you can't be mindlessly positive about the film you haven't seen either.

I've never said I'm not going to see this movie. I've said that at this point it hasn't sold me yet. Don't you guys bullshit me and everyone else with some 'great moral claim' about pre-judgment that you, yourselves, aren't even following.

 

[ST-One]

Vance said:
Right... because the world works that way.

So, before you can decide if you might like something or not, you HAVE to try it first. You have to commit the time, energy, whatever needed, BEFORE judging whether or not you commit the time, energy, and whatever's needed.

You don't live life this way, it's a completely stupid fanboi demand designed to do nothing at all except say 'well, you can't disagree with me'.

If you lot really walked this walk, your signatures wouldn't be filled with expectant praise of the movie, either. Why? Because you can't be mindlessly positive about the film you haven't seen either.

I've never said I'm not going to see this movie. I've said that at this point it hasn't sold me yet. Don't you guys bullshit me and everyone else with some 'great moral claim' about pre-judgment that you, yourselves, aren't even following.

The only people here pre-judging are those that doom this film already and are saying that it won't be good because of the redesign of the Enterprise.
The rest will reseve judgment until they have actually seen the film to know what it is actually about.

 

[Vance]

And you're lying, ST-One, particularly if you're including me on that list. And your 'reserve judgment' is also a lie, because you - personally - have shown how much you love this upcoming film.

The fact is that this thread exists to critique the view of the Enterprise as shown in the teaser. The fact that you feel personally offended that some fans are concerned about the direction of the film as a whole based on the obvious 're-deux' of old girl speaks volumes.

So quit the bullshit and the intellectual dishonesty. If people can blow sunshine around based on what little information is out there, people are just as valid in blowing stormclouds as well.

 

[largo]

of course you can't critique the film, it doesn't exist yet.

but the intent of this thread is to critique the enterprise as shown in the teaser. everyone's seen that, and it ALONE is certainly a valid basis for interest for or against the rest of the movie. the enterprise is a major character, whether its your personal focus or not. i'm fairly certain that, had rudy giuliani been cast as a young captain kirk, the negative response would be universal, "haven't seen it yet" be damned.

it's not "because of this ONE THING, everything else about the movie will suck", it is "because of this ONE THING, the rest of the movie doesn't matter and the experience as a whole will suck".

for myself, looking at how incredibly wide this page has been pushed by a few images, this is familiar territory, even if i don't share the sentiment wrt the enterprise.

 

[Vektor]

Vance said:
This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?

You know, this is a very important consideration because if the movie really does suck, everyone who watches it could suffer permanent blindness, chronic constipation, severe heartburn, irreversible mental implosion and spontaneous combustion. Shoot, the world as we know it might end! By all means, we absolutely must form a definitive opinion about the movie before seeing it because there is so much at stake!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to decide whether or not I should read the rest of this thread or stop right here because the consequences… the consequences…

 

[ST-One]

Vance said:
And you're lying, ST-One, particularly if you're including me on that list.

Not a lie - just an observation.

Vance said:
And your 'reserve judgment' is also a lie, because you - personally - have shown how much you love this upcoming film.

Where would I have shown this 'love' for the film?
How can I possibly love this film if it not even finished and next to nothing is known about the story?

What I like is the redesign of the Enterprise - very modern and still very true to the original (at least judging from what was shown of her).

You, on the other hand, judge the movie as a whole already just by on (albeit very important) design element, the Enterprise.