I'll laugh my ass off at JJ for having his CGI team waste upwards of $250,000 for this if the damn thing isn't going to appear at all.
The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!
- Thread starter Professor Moriarty
- Start date
I'll laugh my ass off at JJ for having his CGI team waste upwards of $250,000 for this if the damn thing isn't going to appear at all.
"So, maybe what's at work here is a little bit of jealousy?"
I agree! :thumbsup:
"Oh...My...God!!!! They have done better Star Trek since 1966 (prose, comix, audio, live action, animated), than I have since 1966(prose, comix, audio, live action, animated)!!!!
"
I agree! :thumbsup:
"Oh...My...God!!!! They have done better Star Trek since 1966 (prose, comix, audio, live action, animated), than I have since 1966(prose, comix, audio, live action, animated)!!!!
"
You'd think that investing a substantial chunk of cash into a model that isn't even going to end up in modified form in the movie would be a "waste of time."
And if it doesn't?
Or more importantly, if it fails to fill seats the next week? Remember, Star Trek V set a box office record its opening weekend, so any sci-fi film can win the opening week. Case in point: Cloverfield. Boffo box office opening weekend, dropping like a Stuka dive bomber the next.
What should be keeping these guys up nights is what happens if the fans, the ones so many are willing to write off as irrelevant, don't show up at all, and we have a repeat of Nemesis.
The more they stray into reboot territory, the more likely this thing won't even open.
Or more importantly, if it fails to fill seats the next week? Remember, Star Trek V set a box office record its opening weekend, so any sci-fi film can win the opening week. Case in point: Cloverfield. Boffo box office opening weekend, dropping like a Stuka dive bomber the next.
What should be keeping these guys up nights is what happens if the fans, the ones so many are willing to write off as irrelevant, don't show up at all, and we have a repeat of Nemesis.
The more they stray into reboot territory, the more likely this thing won't even open.
I saw Cloverfield- dug it- but the drop off didn't surprise me; it's a niche film, and a bit divisive.
STXI is a different story. JJ's cred + a (so far) excellent marketing strategy + a fresh approach to popular characters = a much better chance to have legs.
Nemesis tanked not only because it was a piece of crap, but I think people were frankly tired of the TNG crew on yet another redundant outing in that godawful fanboy Enterprise E.
STXI is a different story. JJ's cred + a (so far) excellent marketing strategy + a fresh approach to popular characters = a much better chance to have legs.
Nemesis tanked not only because it was a piece of crap, but I think people were frankly tired of the TNG crew on yet another redundant outing in that godawful fanboy Enterprise E.
I don't mind reboot territory, as they just as easily could jettison all post-TOS material and still be a "reboot" (though that would be more like TimeMachine.)
The thing that bothers me is that it looks as if they're creating something even less inspired that the last set of entrées from Casa de Trek.
Mind you, I'd like it to succeed, but not by turning Trek into either a mindless actionfest or prissy nerd-poetry.
"Nemesis tanked not only because it was a piece of crap, but I think people were frankly tired of the TNG crew on yet another redundant outing in that godawful fanboy Enterprise E."
The Enterprise E is based on the Phase II movie design. Same as Star Trek XI's. :grin:
"What should be keeping these guys up nights is what happens if the fans, the ones so many are willing to write off as irrelevant, don't show up at all, and we have a repeat of Nemesis.
The more they stray into reboot territory, the more likely this thing won't even open."
The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm did show up for The Non Reboot Nemesis tm, and it still flopped.
Star Trek XI is not being made for The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm
Which means The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm are The Irrelevant Old Fogey Fans tm.
Star Trek XI: Not Made for The Irrelevant Old Fogey Fans tm :thumbsup:
The Enterprise E is based on the Phase II movie design. Same as Star Trek XI's. :grin:
"What should be keeping these guys up nights is what happens if the fans, the ones so many are willing to write off as irrelevant, don't show up at all, and we have a repeat of Nemesis.
The more they stray into reboot territory, the more likely this thing won't even open."
The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm did show up for The Non Reboot Nemesis tm, and it still flopped.
Star Trek XI is not being made for The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm
Which means The Relevant Old Fogey Fans tm are The Irrelevant Old Fogey Fans tm.
Star Trek XI: Not Made for The Irrelevant Old Fogey Fans tm :thumbsup:
Still untrue. And still foolish.
Looks good. I cant wait to see this movie.
Guess I'll weigh in on this issue. I've had a big problem with fandom for quite a while now. Specifically in their unwillingness to accept new ideas. What worked in 1966 doesn't work in 2008. Nor does what worked in 1987. Roberto Orci and JJ Abrams have gone on record many times explaining what they are attempting to do. The fact of the matter is that the future as depicted in 1966 is no longer futuristic. How many of us walk around with communicators that have more functionality than Kirk's did? They are attempting to "re-futurize" Star Trek. To bring back the wonder and fantasy of it all.
Add to the fact that the current Star Trek universe has been so mined that there is nothing left to do. I have been a supporter of some kind of reboot for many years now.
The adventures we know will always be there, but there is no reason why we cannot start again with the same characters, despite what some fanboys may think.
No one is a bigger fan of The Shatner than I. But I am not opposed to seeing someone else in the role.
Consider how reboots have done wonders for ailing franchises. Battlestar Galactica and James Bond being the most obvious and successful.
My biggest fear is all of the people who are already bashing this project, before a frame has even been seen, simply because it is not the Trek they know, will have some kind of effect on the success of this new adventure.
Much like their hatred of Enterprise destroyed the franchise on television.
If you destroy any chance of success, what will that get you? No more Trek at all.
Keep an open mind. Everything you love will always be around. So why not given something new a chance.
Add to the fact that the current Star Trek universe has been so mined that there is nothing left to do. I have been a supporter of some kind of reboot for many years now.
The adventures we know will always be there, but there is no reason why we cannot start again with the same characters, despite what some fanboys may think.
No one is a bigger fan of The Shatner than I. But I am not opposed to seeing someone else in the role.
Consider how reboots have done wonders for ailing franchises. Battlestar Galactica and James Bond being the most obvious and successful.
My biggest fear is all of the people who are already bashing this project, before a frame has even been seen, simply because it is not the Trek they know, will have some kind of effect on the success of this new adventure.
Much like their hatred of Enterprise destroyed the franchise on television.
If you destroy any chance of success, what will that get you? No more Trek at all.
Keep an open mind. Everything you love will always be around. So why not given something new a chance.
What got Enterprise was not the hatred of some hardcore-Trekkers, but the fact, that too many shows (mainly in the first two seasons) were just mediocre "problem-of-the-week" episodes or even rehashes of stories done before in Trek (and not necessarily good ones).
When they finally came around and did the shows, that people wanted to see, too many people had already given up watching.
Broker wrote:
This is a truism that gets said and repeated without any substantiation or proof, and it is beginning to grate on me. Why? Why doesn't it work? Give a reason, and not just a pithy aphorism. There are plenty of things that are as old as 1966 -- or much older -- that still work fine. There are designs and ways of doing things that are considered classics and are a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years old, and are still accepted as legitimate expressions of what their creators were trying to express or achieve. Egyptians mummify in anticipation of an afterlife. Christians embalm in anticipation of resurrection. Egyptians build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen pharos. Americans build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen founders. Athenians create democracy, and Romans craft a republic, in response to failed tyranny. 2300 years later, Americans frame a democratic republic in response to failed imperialism.
The overall form of the starship is the same -- fine. It always is the same. 1701-D, Voyager, NX-01... saucer and nacelles. That much has endured. But why must one embrace the specific form of that thing that Matt Jefferies drew and that now sits in the Smithsonian? In part, because it now sits in the Smithsonian. It is classic. It is the recognized form that more than anything else, means Star Trek. If you begin to depart from the specific form, the first question that must be asked is "why?" And if the answer is "a need for added detail" then this thread and the work of other artists -- including the TOS-R team -- is ample evidence that it can be done within the constraints of the original design.
But if the answer is "because we can change things if we want to," then that motive, and not the design itself, should be held in scrutiny.
And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?
This is a truism that gets said and repeated without any substantiation or proof, and it is beginning to grate on me. Why? Why doesn't it work? Give a reason, and not just a pithy aphorism. There are plenty of things that are as old as 1966 -- or much older -- that still work fine. There are designs and ways of doing things that are considered classics and are a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years old, and are still accepted as legitimate expressions of what their creators were trying to express or achieve. Egyptians mummify in anticipation of an afterlife. Christians embalm in anticipation of resurrection. Egyptians build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen pharos. Americans build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen founders. Athenians create democracy, and Romans craft a republic, in response to failed tyranny. 2300 years later, Americans frame a democratic republic in response to failed imperialism.
The overall form of the starship is the same -- fine. It always is the same. 1701-D, Voyager, NX-01... saucer and nacelles. That much has endured. But why must one embrace the specific form of that thing that Matt Jefferies drew and that now sits in the Smithsonian? In part, because it now sits in the Smithsonian. It is classic. It is the recognized form that more than anything else, means Star Trek. If you begin to depart from the specific form, the first question that must be asked is "why?" And if the answer is "a need for added detail" then this thread and the work of other artists -- including the TOS-R team -- is ample evidence that it can be done within the constraints of the original design.
But if the answer is "because we can change things if we want to," then that motive, and not the design itself, should be held in scrutiny.
And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?
