Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Professor Moriarty, Jan 17, 2008.
^ Please re-read what I wrote. Clearly you missed my point.
How important is it for this discussion if the building-scene is in the movie?
But the design of the ship will not differ between this teaser and the film, and that is, what we should discuss here, the design of the ship.
Actually, with a year to go, I'm sure the design will evolve a fair bit.
Possibly. I'm reminded of the first images of King Kong from Jackson's movie (or for that matter, Gollum's first appearence in flashback in FOTK) - the filmmakers did a lot of revision and adjustment between that and the final.
I wouldn't be surprised if it changed a bit. Wasn't this trailer done pretty early?
Plus it's...under construction.
Unfortunately, to a disturbingly large chunk of this board's population, the teaser is apparently an actual scene from the finished movie.
The Enterprise has to go thru 20 years of service before Kirk gets command, could be that they might show it being built/ launched, during or right after opening credits, then go thru a quick summary backstory kind of thing of the Enterprise's adventures before Pike hands off command to Kirk, then the actual plot begins with a vessel closer to or exact to the classic tos 1701.
They made minor cosmetic changes to the ship, all of which seem to make the ship look better and more realistic.
I fail to see what some of you are complaining about, unless you're freaking out over the fact that they're building the ship. Either a) this is a way for them to show us the ship's updated design while making a clever nod towards its (and the film's) unfinished state, or b) they disregarded the idea that April captains the NCC-1701, "hands" it to Pike, who then "hands" it to Kirk.
If b) is true, this affects only two live-action episodes (the "Menagerie" duo) and an animated episode. It's not as though they forgot Pike existed - Greenwood's in the movie for a reason.
If they really are disregarding this fact, I can't say I care much. Until I hear and see otherwise, I'm assuming that there's a valid story-based reason for not respecting that element of the franchise's history (and that's assuming that they aren't respecting it). I am glad that the creators are willing to make changes to an established formula, particularly if they place a higher emphasis on telling a story than sticking to every established detail. I don't mind seeing changes and re-interpretations; I don't expect to see a perfect replication of the Bard's intentions when I go to see one of Shakespeare's plays. You may feel differently; if so, I suggest enjoying the Trek that already exists (rather than complaining about something you wouldn't see as "true Trek" anyway); one wastes time for all involved, while the other allows you to spend your time enjoyably.
Unfortunately, this is where society in general seems to be headed. Either you agree with someone who forces their opinion on you, at which point you're deemed a "mindless follower" not worthy of being part of the group, or you offer your own different-however-logical opinion on the matter, and are subsequently deemed a "troublemaker" not worthy of being part of the group.
A panel seam that is measured in meters is not a 'realistic' design. It's a recipe for disaster. If the 'blank line between panels' is something people can WALK through, how is that realistic?
Got the wrong tech for the century, there, doncha? Except for possibly having some little food replimat thing, the whole replication shtick (which probably did as much to ruin trek for me as anything, given the somethingfornothing/magicboxtech is murder on drama) is ModernTrek century 24 stuff, not TOS era. Unless you want to retcon everything, at which point I bow out gracefully ...
You can't honestly expect people who use transporters to not have replication of some kind, do you?
I'll grant you the fact that they're easy to misuse, but TNG misused most concepts thrown at them.
Hell, the way TNG used replicators, they'd have constant power shortages because they'd use it to fucking open and shut panels instead of using handles.
Since there are a couple different notions about how transporters actually work, yeah, I can easily figure them not to have replication. Somethingfornothing or somethingfornextonothing ain't quite the same as having Jeanie/genie blink you from one spot to the next.
Whether you figure the transporter actually converts matter to energy and back again (which sounds like an explosion to me, and I think Blish says as much in his novel), or whether it works like a dirac jump or a tunnel diode, it still isn't altering matter into a different form, or xeroxing one piece of matter into multiples.
Honestly, the two bits of tech have never seemed similar to me at all, though now that you point it out, I can see why folks might make that assumption.
All I can say is, I hope the image isn't really used in the movie.
It still is not clear to me if this movie is supposed to be a canon-prequel or a reimagine/remake.
If it is a canon-prequel based on TOS, I hope they nix the overdone aztecing and give the ship the TOS look, with a more moderate dose of hull detail and the block lettering for the "NCC", etc. It would not have to look *exactly* the same, but if it is a canon-prequel, it should be very close, not like the TMP/refit Enterprise.
If, on the other hand, the new movie is a remake, then the "look" of the "new" ship is nowhere near as important as what the "new" ship and characters stand for. It all depends on what's in-bounds and out-of-bounds for a remake. I hope it doesn't come across as another GALACTICA. In fact, it would be interesting if the new show were a remake that is not "mean" like GALACTICA. If the characters stand for principles like the Prime Directive, then this could be a very refreshing twist in the evolution of the TREK franchise.
It's been suggested that this movie may be a little bit of both. I hope not. Either it should be a canon-prequel that takes TOS seriously or it should be a remake that takes principles behind TREK seriously.
Yep, it is.
WINGSLEY, I just read the earlier stuff from a page or so back. I don't think I recognize your voice from other posts, but I will say it is welcome as hell here. Don't know that I agree with all of the content, but there be some smarts there, and THAT is appreciated.
...saw the teaser last night and liked it. But with no way to know if it'll be in the film [or when it'll be presented as] there's not much reason for hysteria yet IMHO.
Personally I always expected an "updated" look...
What will make this movie a success from the studio's perspective [which is all that matters as far as getting more Trek in the near future] are box office numbers which will necessitate getting a lot of non-Trekfen to go -- a lot more of them thean there are of us hard-cores. And they will not care that the ship looks a little different -- they'll recognize the shape, say "oh, that looks cool" to themselves, and move on to the story and whether or not Pine and Quinto et al do a good job. If it and they are good, the film will do well and be a success. If not, even resurrecting the model out of the Smithsonian wouldn't help.
It's fun [in a sad sort of way] to watch you guys run in circles and flap your arms, but it really doesn't affect much and arguing about the ship as if the fate of the movie depended on it frankly makes me giggle.
This is all inside-the-Beltway stuff. If we were a network we'd be CSPAN.
It makes sense that they wouldn't have replicators in every room like in ModernTrek era, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have them on an industrial scale on a planet or space station, where they could have all the bulky machinery and dedicated power supplies the tech in it's infancy would probably require.
That "seam" - part of the shield grid if my Trek knowledge serves correctly - is patently not metres in width. The Enterprise is not that big. I thought a TOS purist would have known that...
If you don't like it then fine, but try and keep the hyperbole in check, yeah?
Separate names with a comma.