The USS Enterprise NCC-1701/1701-A appreciation thread
- Thread starter TheSubCommander
- Start date
Spockboy
Not that I don't love the original and refit Enterprises very much, but...
Hollywood didn't decide the JJprise was crap looking. I, amd many like minded, did. The proportions and shapes are messed up (not the word I'm really thinking). It looks like the TMP refit was put through a distortion machine.Not that I don't love the original and refit Enterprises very much, but...
Then again just as the TOS and TMP designs are reflections of the thinking that went into those productions the JJprise does reflect the distorted thinking that went into the JJtrek films.
I actually prefer the Abrams version to the refit. Never could get over the refit nacelles.
C'mon. There was no "distorted thinking". Comments like these make you look like a child.
The biggest problem with JJ-prise is the inward curving pylons. It adds to the already 'melty' appearance of the ship and squishes the two huge engines too close together. If it had straight pylons with the engines farther apart like the original and TMP refit, it would look much better.
No, they don't. They make it look like I have an opinion. But , of course, I haven't forgotten that if one doesn't kiss Abrams' ass around here then one is a "hater." My opinion that JJ's Trek films are shit is just as valid as anyone else liking them.
The first image I saw released of ST09 was of the JJprise. At that moment alarm bells went off. It was a genuine WTF! moment. Every new nugget about the then forthcoming film I came across was further affirmation that this wasn't going the way the way I might hav hoped.
Then I saw the film.
Following are a few images with sets of identical twins pictured. Are both people of each set 100% equally attractive, or does one of each set nudge out the other just a bit?
http://mizzoumag.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/twins_web.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...1e3-ab6a-0019bb2963f4/5389678279605.image.jpg
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20090228071955&path-prefix=en
If you are being honest then you now understand why some don't find NuEnterprise as aesthetically pleasing as the other.
http://mizzoumag.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/twins_web.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...1e3-ab6a-0019bb2963f4/5389678279605.image.jpg
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20090228071955&path-prefix=en
If you are being honest then you now understand why some don't find NuEnterprise as aesthetically pleasing as the other.
It isn't about an opinion. It's about making the creators look bad because they don't share your vision of what Star Trek is.
Actually from what I've gathered in the short time I've been posting on Trekbbs, too often it's all about trying to make anyone with a different opinion look bad. That and repeating one's opinion over and over again in the belief that we all missed it the first thousand times, and that it will eventually become fact. There are certain conventional "wisdoms" here that one bucks at the risk of the dog-pile-on-the-rabbit effect.
I think the Enterprise from the 2009 movie onwards evokes the original from some angles, as how it looked on Nero's view screen when he realized it was the ship Spock served on. I'll take it over any Enterprise with a B suffix or later; just one man's opinion.
I think the Enterprise from the 2009 movie onwards evokes the original from some angles, as how it looked on Nero's view screen when he realized it was the ship Spock served on. I'll take it over any Enterprise with a B suffix or later; just one man's opinion.
Last edited:
I think that's what throws the people that don't "get" what different and why the old schoolers (like me) bitch so much. There are a lot of shots in 2009 that just ARE the Enterprise. And everything else is details. But to some of us, the details are what make all the difference.
The thing that bugs me the most is how much the design language leans on TMP. People say it's ridiculous to go back to the design of the mid 60's but somehow the designs of just ten or so years later are fresh and new enough? (There's no WAY designs from 1966 can hold up but designs from 1977 (to pick another franchise) can be lovingly adhered to?) I'd have been happier with the liberties they took with the JJ-prise if they hadn't had so many TMP callbacks. To say nothing of TMP callbacks that didn't do what the original did anymore because that's just nerd stuff.
So be it because they certainly look bad to me and compared to other works I've seen.
It's just about common courtesy. How would you like it if people talked about work you did being the product of "distorted thinking"?
We do.
If I'm putting work out in the public domain to be seen by anybody then I better be prepared for people who might not like it.
I certainly don't owe Abrams anything. He put work out to be seen. He therefore has to be prepared for people who might think his work is crap.
And a great many do not think so, you have to take that into account too. And those people are the ones who will continue to fund further Star Trek productions, keeping the franchise going.
I know I plan to put up money for Beyond this year, we may see the current Enterprise destroyed but it's a long standing tradition for Starfleet to immediately shell out for a new one. I want to see what it looks like and no doubt I'll like that version as well.
I know I plan to put up money for Beyond this year, we may see the current Enterprise destroyed but it's a long standing tradition for Starfleet to immediately shell out for a new one. I want to see what it looks like and no doubt I'll like that version as well.
Goody for them. I'll be keeping my money in my pocket for films or others I deem far more worthwhile.
Similar threads
