The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Cary L. Brown]

Starship Polaris said:

Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.

There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.

Must you ALWAYS INSULT OTHER PEOPLE, "Oh Great and Mighty Dennis?"

Seriously... you just insulted him. BADLY. You may think it's "kewl" for you to attack others...and we all know that there are people here, because you had a hand in one of the most God-awful episodes of TNG ("Tin Man") would gladly lick the soles of your feet... but you have NO RIGHT to attack people the way that you do.

I know that this will get me a dozen or so "report to mod" clicks from your "fan club" on here... I don't really care. Because you need to get called on the carpet for it. Your arrogant, insulting response to that post was totally unacceptable, and only a total prick would have done that. You owe an apology. I'm sure that you won't GIVE one... but you still owe it.

 

[foravalon]

Cary L. Brown said:

Vance said:
It's kind of funny. On its own merits, it's not bad (though the perspective seems off, too scrunched from front to back) and might look good on the big screen. It does look like it'll be a 'new' TOS enterprise, stuck between ENT and TMP rather than on its own, but that's to be expecting.

What's amusing though, is that on the other hand, this shot probably guarantees that the movie will bomb, for precisely the same reason.

HuH? Please expand on that...

Well, it is an odd-numbered[/i] Star Trek....

Vance said:
...how many OTHER science fiction icons are there that are so definitive? Not that many.. the Death Star, the Falcon.. and.. that's about the list.

I'd have to say the X-wing, and the TARDIS figure pretty prominently in there, if not here in the States then certainly in the UK.

Unfortunately, upon re-looking at Gabe's Enterprise and the view we have here of the new ship, the nacelles look precisely like Gabe's, but hopefully I'm wrong. No offense to Gabe intended, I think the work he's done is beautiful, but I'm also a purist Canon Trek Junkie and I don't feel very comfortable with this decision if it has been made. But hey, if the movie turns out to be Really good, well, forgiveness is easier to get from me than permission.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Lord_Schtupp said:
My prediction is that they will show a highly detailed but otherwise exact version of our beloved classic 1701 at the very end of the movie, probably rebuilt after the epic battle with the bad guys (whoever they will be). So really the only "canon" that gets violated will be the first pilot episode with Pike.

I really, really hope so...

 

[Eternality]

It makes me wonder if the marketing team is out working with focus groups to see if the general public can even tell the difference between the 1960s Enterprise, and the 2008 Enterprise, as well as seeing which one they like better...

In anycase, I don't really think we should put too much stock into this, we don't even know if the finished product showing at the end of the year will look like this at all...

The detailing going into this does give off a sense of production quality that we are used to from 2000s sci fi. I like what I'm seeing, but I don't think the sorts of cues we're seeing here (i.e. building on the ground) are going to be what we see in the final product. Nor do I think in the end that most rank-and-file Trek fans will even be terribly miffed by most of the changes: It might register, but it's not going to be a deal breaker.

 

[Arlo]

foravalon said:

Unfortunately, upon re-looking at Gabe's Enterprise and the view we have here of the new ship, the nacelles look precisely like Gabe's, but hopefully I'm wrong.

You think those look PRECISELY like Gabe's? Really? They're both roughly tube shaped, I'll give you that, but that's where the similarities break down.

 

[foravalon]

I should have revised my wording, it's not precise, but "They're both roughly tube shaped, ...that's where the similarities break down." is way off too.

The new nacelles have those cowls, a feature not seen on any previous designs of the Enterprise except for Gabe's .

The mechanisms inside the Nacelle caps also appear to each have at least two different spinning apparatus, which if that is the case, likely means that they will spin in opposing directions, (why would you have one pinwheel on top of another one if they're just going to spin in the same direction?). The dual pinwheels spinning in opposite directions is also a feature unique to Gabe's design if you've seen his animations.

Obviously it's hard to tell from this one static image but denying at least those design aspects is just silly.

It might be something new, in fact I'm hoping that it is, but it's certainly not something old that we've seen before, and the design elements which can be seen in the shot certainly have been seen before in Gabe's work.

 

[Ptrope]

Cary L. Brown said:

Starship Polaris said:

Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.

There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.

Must you ALWAYS INSULT OTHER PEOPLE, "Oh Great and Mighty Dennis?"

Seriously... you just insulted him. BADLY. You may think it's "kewl" for you to attack others...and we all know that there are people here, because you had a hand in one of the most God-awful episodes of TNG ("Tin Man") would gladly lick the soles of your feet... but you have NO RIGHT to attack people the way that you do.

I know that this will get me a dozen or so "report to mod" clicks from your "fan club" on here... I don't really care. Because you need to get called on the carpet for it. Your arrogant, insulting response to that post was totally unacceptable, and only a total prick would have done that. You owe an apology. I'm sure that you won't GIVE one... but you still owe it.

Well, Cary, you were right - it does get you a warning for flaming.

OTOH, Starship Polaris, if you can't be respectful of others - and let's face it, you do do this stuff all the time, across the entire BBS - then don't bother posting in these threads. It's possible to disrupt the discussion without breaking the rules, and you've refined it to an art. It's not necessary, though, and it's definitely not welcome. Keep the snide subtexts to yourself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Addy said:
I guess the phrase "suspension of disbelief" would be equally nonsensical to you

Not at all - but that idea has no reasonable association with the proposition that the fictional Trek continuity should be privileged as if it's equal to reality in some way. What you posted was simply logically unsupportable as an argument.

 

[Ptrope]

Okay, guys, take the hint: get back on topic and give the semantic arguments a rest, or the spamming warnings begin.

 

[Arlo]

foravalon said:
I should have revised my wording, it's not precise, but "They're both roughly tube shaped, ...that's where the similarities break down." is way off too.

The new nacelles have those cowls, a feature not seen on any previous designs of the Enterprise except for Gabe's .

The mechanisms inside the Nacelle caps also appear to each have at least two different spinning apparatus, which if that is the case, likely means that they will spin in opposing directions, (why would you have one pinwheel on top of another one if they're just going to spin in the same direction?). The dual pinwheels spinning in opposite directions is also a feature unique to Gabe's design if you've seen his animations.

Obviously it's hard to tell from this one static image but denying at least those design aspects is just silly.

It might be something new, in fact I'm hoping that it is, but it's certainly not something old that we've seen before, and the design elements which can be seen in the shot certainly have been seen before in Gabe's work.

Aside from the cowl (which I'm not even that sure of is actually a cowl; foreshortening of the movie still suggests it could be near the length of the whole nacelle, not just the front), I see no similarity, sorry. And the Bussard mechanisms? There have been so many variants of that thing, it's something of an inside joke at this board. The "dual pinwheel" effect, I'm rather certain, has been done before.

Anyway, this is nitpicking. I'll happily eat my words in one year, but I really don't get a vibe that this thing is cribbed from Gabe.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Arlo said:
Aside from the cowl (which I'm not even that sure of is actually a cowl; foreshortening of the movie still suggests it could be near the length of the whole nacelle, not just the front), I see no similarity, sorry. And the Bussard mechanisms? There have been so many variants of that thing, it's something of an inside joke at this board. The "dual pinwheel" effect, I'm rather certain, has been done before.

This is true. The "cowl" is the only part of the thing that seems similar to Gabe's, and as you say it's difficult to tell that based on a single angle shot. There's not a close resemblance between these blades and the effect on Gabe's (no closer than to the original, which they're both derived from) unless, as suggested, they look similar in motion - and we have no way of knowing that at this point.

 

[aridas sofia]

Lord_Schtupp said:
My prediction is that they will show a highly detailed but otherwise exact version of our beloved classic 1701 at the very end of the movie, probably rebuilt after the epic battle with the bad guys (whoever they will be). So really the only "canon" that gets violated will be the first pilot episode with Pike.

I'm guardedly optimistic that this will be the case, and damned well hope it will be.

But I'm the guy that thought they had Shatner signed and were paying him to make an ass of himself, so take my optimism with a large chunk of NaCl.

 

[Wingsley]

Cary L. Brown said:

Ultimately, this is going to result in the new movie being treated much like the "Lost in Space" movie... as a separate piece. Except in the case of Lost in Space, both the TV show and the movie were abortions. In this case, the TV show is a classic, and we don't know WHAT the movie will be like. But it will inevitably cause a split in the mythos... fans arguing forever after about "which continuity" we're talking about... people choosing sides and fighting. Flame wars, etc.

It's pointless, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive. It may not mean that the film will be a success or a failure, but it will very likely put the final nails into the coffin of classic Trek fandom.

There are those who post here who'll take HUGE pleasure in that, too... and we know who they are.

Thanks, Cary, for the very thoughtful comments.

You are probably right about the "pleasure" comment. It was long known, not just in Hollywood, that Mr. Berman had an agenda of imposing his own politics onto TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Alot of folks went along with Bermanian TREK, and would not stand for criticism of it. There were many fans of TOS, myself included, who saw the implications of concept erosion even if the early years of TNG. When fans started becoming vocal in their criticisms of VOY and ENT, it was a surprise to me since I did not have access to first-runs of these shows. Having seen most of them in cable re-runs, and having witnessed the divided fan reaction on the internet, it isn't hard to put two and two together and see the some fans are in one camp and others are in the opposite camp. And boy, do they harbor a grudge after VOY ended and ENT was canceled.

Having said that, it now seems apparent that my previous postings have been misconstrued.

To re-iterate: a re-make/re-imagining can be legitimate; doing so does raise questions as to what the "new" TREK universe will stand for. Do the Starfleet characters operate under a Prime Directive or will they just chrage in, guns a-blazing, to "smoke 'em out of their holes"? Do the various races and species respect each other? Or is this going to be like the new GALACTICA, where you have fist-fights over a card game and pilots who are addicts? Will we see Lieutenant Uhura, or Britney Spears?

The notion of a remake is legitimate. (This movie could be a great thing.) So are these questions about the direction of such a remake. Saying "go and see the movie" doesn't cut it. Being a fan of TORA! TORA! TORA! did not obligate anyone to see PEARL HARBOR.

We'll have to wait 'n see.

It's interesting that critiques of the image (and the obvious implications of said image) were solicited in this thread, but anyone who does so risks being a target; "the movie isn't even out yet, and you're shooting it down". Meanwhile, people on TrekBBS are jumping to similar conclusions, using words to the effect of "This is exactly how it should look in a motion picture made in 2008." It seems that if the critique is flattering, it's okay to jump to a conclusion. The moment the critique is anything less than flattering, you're being outrageously judgemental and premature. Is that where we're headed?

So, all together now: the new movie will be the greatest STAR TREK ever, the image is so sexy that we all want to pre-order the model kit for next Christmas. And when we look back on the last 40 years, we'll look upon the "old" trek versus the new one, and we'll all agree that the Beatles was just Paul McCartney's band before Wings.

Are we all in agreement now?

Glad we got that right.

 

[foravalon]

So I just got back from seeing Cloverfield and likewise the teaser trailer for the ST film. I can confirm that the dual blades in the nacelle caps do spin in opposite directions in the same way that Gabe's do.

But regarding the teaser in general, I don't think that there's any implied in-universe connection being made here. In fact, all the visuals seem to be pretty much a sight gag revolving around the tag line "Under Construction".

Everything in the trailer other than the reveal of the ship itself is modern and un-futuristic, the sight gag being that the full scale Enterprise is actually being welded together for the purpose of being filmed. It does look photo realistic, it is really cool, but I don't think anything in it should be taken any more seriously than the First Contact trailer showing a giant Borg ship in the shape the Starfleet logo. It looks to be just one big titillating pun.

 

[Forbin]

I don't think Cary's warned post really qualified as flaming, so much as a well-deserved chastizement. Polaris' posts are way closer to flaming than Cary's understandable and appreciated response.

Had to say that. Carry on.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

^^Though this really isn't the place to say so, I agree.

 

[Arlo]

foravalon said:
I don't think anything in it should be taken any more seriously than the First Contact trailer showing a giant Borg ship in the shape the Starfleet logo. It looks to be just one big titillating pun.

Can we have this somehow plastered at the top of every forum page so people stop trotting out "OH NOES, WTF WELDARS IN THE 24th CNETARY WTF!?!?ONEONE!?!"

 

[ancient]

Those Nacelles do have many similar elements to Gabe's. They aren't the same ones, but they really look based on his. Of course, the perspective is so screwed up in that trailer shot it's hard to do a good comparison.

Regarding the redesign, and all:

I don't think that changing the design of the Enterprise itself is needed. The designers are not going to be turned into 'copy-machines' by keeping it's design. This is a big budget movie. There are going to be dozens of new ships and locations for the designers to build from scratch. No one can tell me that not changing this one ship design is going to put anyone out of a job. They chose to call their movie "Star Trek", no one forced them to.

This new ship is ok and all. But it just looks like...the cook that couldn't stop decorating the cake and ended up with 4 feet of frosting on it. It's not a huge tragedy or anything, but it is a bit annoying.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Actually, some parts of Gabe's nacelles are closer to the original as on the other ones.

 

[foravalon]

Arlo said:

foravalon said:
I don't think anything in it should be taken any more seriously than the First Contact trailer showing a giant Borg ship in the shape the Starfleet logo. It looks to be just one big titillating pun.

Can we have this somehow plastered at the top of every forum page so people stop trotting out "OH NOES, WTF WELDARS IN THE 24th CNETARY WTF!?!?ONEONE!?!"

You don't have to freak out dude, seriously take a breath.

All I'm saying is nothing in the preview really makes any in-story sense. Why would they be building the 1701 from scratch given the likely time-frame of the story? Why would they have hull insignia and detailing applied when they don't even have the structure completed? What possible reason would they have for building such massive elements on the surface only to have to haul them up into orbit? Surely the complexity of such an effort of just doing that would outweigh any benefits of building on the surface. It all just seems too silly to be so straight-forward. I'm sorry if that thought gives you conniptions.