The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!
- Thread starter Professor Moriarty
- Start date
Though I am loathe to make this comparison...
If we're speaking of iconography, then consider the broad interpretations of icons in religion. No two paintings or frescos have ever portrayed characters and scenes from the bible identically. There are variations both subtle and broad, all based on archetypes. And yet, all are accepted as allegories. No one nitpicks that the virgin Mary's hair is 3 cm. too long.
To some on this board, the One True Enterprise™ is the model at the Smithsonian; any copy that deviates from microscopic laser measurements is a fraud. To most here, I suspect we apply a somewhat rational acceptance of the varied work by Jeffries, Joseph, Jein (what's with all the J's?), and everyone else who has interpreted the girl in various media.
To the "outside world", the iconography of the Enterprise is a dinner plate, a pickle and two sticks. So in short, I wouldn't worry myself that the ship looks "faithful", in terms of making a successful movie. I would be much more concerned about the writing, acting and direction.
If we're speaking of iconography, then consider the broad interpretations of icons in religion. No two paintings or frescos have ever portrayed characters and scenes from the bible identically. There are variations both subtle and broad, all based on archetypes. And yet, all are accepted as allegories. No one nitpicks that the virgin Mary's hair is 3 cm. too long.
To some on this board, the One True Enterprise™ is the model at the Smithsonian; any copy that deviates from microscopic laser measurements is a fraud. To most here, I suspect we apply a somewhat rational acceptance of the varied work by Jeffries, Joseph, Jein (what's with all the J's?), and everyone else who has interpreted the girl in various media.
To the "outside world", the iconography of the Enterprise is a dinner plate, a pickle and two sticks. So in short, I wouldn't worry myself that the ship looks "faithful", in terms of making a successful movie. I would be much more concerned about the writing, acting and direction.
Simple. Because they see something that, on the basis of it being GOOD ENTERTAINMENT ALONE, is something that they want to see.
This trailer (which I'll be seeing in person in a few hours... I'm off to the flick tonight) is all about getting people excited FIRST. That's what the film has to do, too. Remind them that it's Star Trek later.
Aha, but that's how it got sold TO THE STUDIO HEADS, not how it's being sold to the audiences. The general audience isn't all that much more likely to go watch an episode of TOS on the big screen than they are to go see Picard and "Picard light" have dinner, then fight to the death...
The audience will come if it looks like an entertaining film, not if it looks like a Star Trek film. In the minds of many people, those two have long since ceased to be synonymous and have actually become antonyms. "Trek" is NOT "Entertaining" in the minds of the general audience anymore. This film has to change that.
I agree, wholeheartedly, that it's unnecessary and undesirable to make changes to the designs, the costume, etc. And that this will cause problems for the franchise long-term which aren't NECESSARY in order to create a successful film. I think you and I agree on that point.
My only argument with you is that you seem to think that this is going to result, IN AND OF ITSELF, in an unsuccessful film. I don't see the logic behind that argument. I may, PERSONALLY, not like to see certain changes... but that has nothing to do with whether or not the film will be a box-office success.
Leaving the ship identical to the original, or making changes to it, SHOULDN'T bring more butts in, or drive more butts away. The story is what ought to do that. If anyone chooses whether or not to go see a movie based upon the "set dressing," they're there for the wrong reason as far as I'm concerned.
Still... I'm not entirely happy with what I'm seeing (having seen the photoshop-enhanced, brightened image now). I see a lot of pointless, unnecessary changes that don't actually add anything to the design, but do create a contradictory issue with what we already know.
That said... none of that will result in a box-office bomb, will it?
Well, like I said, this particular movie is selling itself heavily on nostalgia, in much the way the BSG, Transformers, etc, did. This is always a tricky thing to do. BSG re-invisioned a weak (and also self-parodic) franchise, so there was little risk in alienating old fans. (Both of them protested, I heard.)
Transformers was a franchise that had ALREADY been re-invisioned multiple times, and was a 'kids line' now designed for an 'adult' audience. A lot more could be forgiven.
But Trek? This is new. Redoing something that ingrained inthe public psyche is an immense undertaking. Like I said, you can make changes, but the more you change, particularly doing so while insulting the source material (see the threads here on the old model), you're shooting yourself in the foot before you've even started the race.
Transformers was a franchise that had ALREADY been re-invisioned multiple times, and was a 'kids line' now designed for an 'adult' audience. A lot more could be forgiven.
But Trek? This is new. Redoing something that ingrained inthe public psyche is an immense undertaking. Like I said, you can make changes, but the more you change, particularly doing so while insulting the source material (see the threads here on the old model), you're shooting yourself in the foot before you've even started the race.
I'm not so sure about this. "Trials and Tribulations" was pure nostalgia, down to the boots and beehives. This movie uses beloved characters, sure, but the setting is wholly new, and thus far none of the promotion (which is nonexistent, really) has played up nostalgia. If anything, they are seem to be trying to make it known it is a modern, fresh approach to the material.
No matter the angles and perspective, those engines are much bigger in diameter relative to the saucer than those on the TOS ship.
It looks like the scale of the ship is close to that of the original, though, based on interior deck heights.
Many details on the saucer resemble the TMP ship - including what look like phaser emplacements on the very forward edge of the saucer top.
Details here may turn out to vary from what the final ship will look like - remember how much adjustment was made to Kong's face (in the Peter Jackson film) after the initial images were released? Details such as, for instance, the placement of the registry - that may have been done simply because they wanted it readable from the angle they're rendering here.
All in all, I like this a lot.
It looks like the scale of the ship is close to that of the original, though, based on interior deck heights.
Many details on the saucer resemble the TMP ship - including what look like phaser emplacements on the very forward edge of the saucer top.
Details here may turn out to vary from what the final ship will look like - remember how much adjustment was made to Kong's face (in the Peter Jackson film) after the initial images were released? Details such as, for instance, the placement of the registry - that may have been done simply because they wanted it readable from the angle they're rendering here.
All in all, I like this a lot.
HOLY 
!!!! I like it. :thumbsup: 
Now I have to see that teaser. Hopefully after it premieres with Cloverfield, it'll be posted on Youtube.
!!!! I like it. :thumbsup: Now I have to see that teaser. Hopefully after it premieres with Cloverfield, it'll be posted on Youtube.
Meh. I'm underwhelmed. My main quibbles involve the engine size, detailing, and the A-B-C deck area... but if forced I could live with it and maybe with time and more views I could grow to... accept it.
I don't think that it's as nostalgic in appearance as it could have been, and it some ways they seemed to have dropped the ball by not reimagining the original design purely without throwing it some refit-y details... but time will tell.
So long as there aren't vectoring nacelles I won't be marching in the streets.
I don't think that it's as nostalgic in appearance as it could have been, and it some ways they seemed to have dropped the ball by not reimagining the original design purely without throwing it some refit-y details... but time will tell.
So long as there aren't vectoring nacelles I won't be marching in the streets.
I was rather hoping for something a little closer to the original. It looks like Gabe was poking around here to refine the official ship after all. Still, I'm more concerned about the suggestion that the ship was built on the ground (I guess the fog is meant to evoke San Francisco?) rather than in orbit.
Is this really a construction shot, though? Consider: the actor playing Chris Pike is a bit older than Hunter during the first pilot. From this, I deduce that the movie takes place very roughly a decade after the Talosian incident. Also, the hull has its markings in place ... are any planes or ships made today painted before the skin is attached? This suggests we're looking at a refit or repair.
Is this really a construction shot, though? Consider: the actor playing Chris Pike is a bit older than Hunter during the first pilot. From this, I deduce that the movie takes place very roughly a decade after the Talosian incident. Also, the hull has its markings in place ... are any planes or ships made today painted before the skin is attached? This suggests we're looking at a refit or repair.
You know I have sat here looking at the image for awhile I have come to a realization the nacelles are not attached to anything the one on the right is closer in then the left. The crane that has a light source on the upper saucer must 600 or 700 feet long as the base is clearly behind the right nacelle. looking at in this light I feel that nacelles are smaller in diameter. this is just my nickel.
Soar Dude
Soar Dude
It's not so much like the Kroenerprise...
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/entfront_0001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_05_04_001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/entview_persp3.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_0000.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_123106_0001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0007.jpg
... which is a good thing in my book. It's more TMP than his.
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/entfront_0001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_05_04_001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/entview_persp3.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_0000.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_123106_0001.jpg
http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/ent_010706_0007.jpg
... which is a good thing in my book. It's more TMP than his.
The movie takes place all over the place - Kirk's infancy, Spock's childhood, Spock serving under Pike...as well, of course, as Spock in the 24th century.
^^^Love your avatar!
To the matter at hand: after all the variations and re-interpretations I've seen, the only design that would have floored me would have been the original. This ship is pretty and all but she's just another tweak of the timeless classic. She's what I really wanted to see. She looked great in "Trials and Trbble-ations" and "In a Mirror Darkly" and in TOS-R. Let's not mince words here: she looked great in a lot of the original effects sequences from the sixties. I only wish I could have seen her on the big screen.
To the matter at hand: after all the variations and re-interpretations I've seen, the only design that would have floored me would have been the original. This ship is pretty and all but she's just another tweak of the timeless classic. She's what I really wanted to see. She looked great in "Trials and Trbble-ations" and "In a Mirror Darkly" and in TOS-R. Let's not mince words here: she looked great in a lot of the original effects sequences from the sixties. I only wish I could have seen her on the big screen.
After studying this image a little more it looks like there is the same kind of cowling around the bussard collector's that Gabriel Koerner's enterprise has. Maybe it's just a trick of perspective but that's what it seems like to me.
I'd also like to give my two cents with regards to Vance's comment that the movie will flop based on this image alone because it doesn't look exactly like the original.
I grew up watching TOS reruns in the 70s and 80s and one of the first things about the show that grabbed me was the Enterprise herself. I fell in love with her. She was like an un-credited member of the cast. I also remember how excited I was at seeing Trials and Tribbleations because we finally got to see her in much better film quality. Suffice it to say that I love the Enterprise and all of the characters and actors who made up TOS.
No one can ever replace TOS but I think everyone can agree that Star Trek didn't get the run it deserved back when it originally aired. And as much as I like the movies I have always wanted to see more adventures of Kirk and the gang back in their heyday so I am looking forward to seeing what they can do with this movie. Now obviously to do this everyone will need to be recast, which of course they have done. Does Quinto look exactly like Nimoy? No. Does Pine look exactly like Shatner? No. Does this mean I won't be able to tell who they are when I see them onscreen? Of course not! So if we are recasting all of the actors I think it only makes sense to recast the Enterprise as well. Will she look exactly like the original? No. Will I recognize her as the Enterprise when I see her onscreen? I think the answer to that one is pretty obvious. If you are willing to accept the recasting of all the original characters I see no reason why you can't accept the recasting of the Enterprise too. Just because she looks different doesn't automatically make it bad.
As others have said, the mainstream movie going public doesn't pick up on all the minute details that us hard core trek fans do. They'll see two nacelles sticking out of a cylinder and a saucer attached to that cylinder by a neck and say "Oh, that's the Enterprise." It's the same with famous pieces of architecture like the Eiffel Tower or the Pyramids, all you need to do is draw a few lines and you can instantly recognize what it is. It doesn't matter what the details are.
I have a few more arguments but I think I'll save those for any rebuttals I may have.
I'd also like to give my two cents with regards to Vance's comment that the movie will flop based on this image alone because it doesn't look exactly like the original.
I grew up watching TOS reruns in the 70s and 80s and one of the first things about the show that grabbed me was the Enterprise herself. I fell in love with her. She was like an un-credited member of the cast. I also remember how excited I was at seeing Trials and Tribbleations because we finally got to see her in much better film quality. Suffice it to say that I love the Enterprise and all of the characters and actors who made up TOS.
No one can ever replace TOS but I think everyone can agree that Star Trek didn't get the run it deserved back when it originally aired. And as much as I like the movies I have always wanted to see more adventures of Kirk and the gang back in their heyday so I am looking forward to seeing what they can do with this movie. Now obviously to do this everyone will need to be recast, which of course they have done. Does Quinto look exactly like Nimoy? No. Does Pine look exactly like Shatner? No. Does this mean I won't be able to tell who they are when I see them onscreen? Of course not! So if we are recasting all of the actors I think it only makes sense to recast the Enterprise as well. Will she look exactly like the original? No. Will I recognize her as the Enterprise when I see her onscreen? I think the answer to that one is pretty obvious. If you are willing to accept the recasting of all the original characters I see no reason why you can't accept the recasting of the Enterprise too. Just because she looks different doesn't automatically make it bad.
As others have said, the mainstream movie going public doesn't pick up on all the minute details that us hard core trek fans do. They'll see two nacelles sticking out of a cylinder and a saucer attached to that cylinder by a neck and say "Oh, that's the Enterprise." It's the same with famous pieces of architecture like the Eiffel Tower or the Pyramids, all you need to do is draw a few lines and you can instantly recognize what it is. It doesn't matter what the details are.
I have a few more arguments but I think I'll save those for any rebuttals I may have.
