ST-One
Vice Admiral
Much like the old Enterprise looked very 'kewl' when she was first introduced in 1966.
Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
Much like the old Enterprise looked very 'kewl' when she was first introduced in 1966.
See, you really don't know a damn thing about Trek and it's history, do you? The classic Enterprise was explicitly designed to not be one of the 'kewl' ships like were coming out at the time. She was designed to be a instantly recognizable vessel with a US Navy motif. If she were designed to look 'kewl' in 1966, it would... well... look a lot more like the one being made for the movie now, actually.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Except that it is NOT taking a creative chance. Just because you change something, and be willing to change something, doesn't mean you're taking a chance, a creative one or otherwise.
Indeed not, if you look at all the claims above how "the must change the ship", and "they could not not have changed the ship", and "it wouldn't work on the big screen because it's OLD", and what not, changing it, isn't "taking a creative chance", it's standard, non-creative, lazy, standard operating procedure.
"Taking a creative chance" it would seem, would be NOT changing it.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I wanna sigh. Point by point:
1. IT'S NOT CREATIVE! A reboot/remake/reimagining and changing everything around, is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. There is nothing creative in it, it's just doing what everyone else is doing. Enterprise? Ah, just make it look a bit like the old Enterprise, make the round caps, put some of the movie Enterprise in, and thry to make more sleek and "kewl" and
. It's uncreative, pre-chewed junk, that it makes my skin crawl. It's like that other Enterprise, "Oh, just make it Voyager 2.0 already. It'll work." "But it's 2 centuries earlier." "Just rename the phasers phase pistols, and add an 'ic' behind 'photon' and it'll show it's earlier but keeps it nice pre-chewed and it'll be ." It's been a DECADE, more than a decade with the start of Voyager, and it is STILL going on. The same mass-produced, uncreative, un-chances-taking junk! But now instead of copying TNG, they copy Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Transformers. God, WHY can't ANYONE see just how much potential there is in Star Trek, if ffing only they'd bothered to take an ACTUAL chance and learn from The Original Series and Deep Space 9. GAAH!.2. Somewhat touched upon in 1. There's nothing new here! It's ALL been done before, to DEATH, and on top of that, it's cheap thrills junk to boot. Put all the crew mates in the academy together (no matter how ridiculous), to look at how great a destiny "the crew" had. My god man, it's done, and done and done and done. Every fantasy show, every cheap fanfic writer has people from a show meeting up when they were kids to show "their great destiny when they joing later", even ffing apocryphal bible writings as Kid Jesus doing miracles for Apostle Kids. It's sooo... GAAAH! It's cheap, it's weak, it's bad and been done to death!
3. Just because they done something new you're going to watching, no matter how big a pile of crap it is. A hell, let's take it literal; they make a pile of crap, then put a camera on it for 90 minutes and then show it in a cinema, you go watch it, and "give it a chance" because hey, it's new, and carries the name "Star Trek". This attitude is the reason why they could just keep milking the crap, could let it go on, and on, and on, and on, and on; it's why Enterprise was Voyager 2.0 and could make it to a 4th season, because people just keep watching it, and buying the merchandise, no matter how bad it was just because it was "Star Trek", until finally, finally, mercifully finally enough people quit watching, LONG, LONG, LONG after the final neck blow to Voyager and Enterprise should have been given it was put down. It makes me want to sigh in defeat, and say, "Fuck it, Star Trek is dead to me."
Actually, NO, that would been creative and taking a chance. It's looking around and see remake after remake after reimagination that completely changes everything and go; "You know what!? Let's do something ballsy, let's do something new and different, and NOT change it. Let's just use that ship, take it seriously, and run. It would require me to have the bold concept that the audience isn't comprised of only drooling morons who can't accept anything unless it's "kewl" and flashy, and that there are actually intelligent people in the world!"
From the arguments that people are making here -that the TOS Enterprise is too dated looking or has too much stigma of TOS- it would seem more that "playing it safe" was redesigning it to spoon feed people what they they think they want to see.
Sleek and Kewl. Make it look like an iPod that's had sex with the Enteprise and it got an extra chromosone or two.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't made that argument at all (nor am I aware of Abrams and Co. making that argument). I don't like the new Enterprise, but I don't mind them re-designing it in principle, and I'll accept that my creative tastes differ from theirs. And I appreciate that they took the creative chance that they did in re-designing it.
If this "Enterprise" doesn't shoot flames out the back of the nacelles and the hangar deck, I'm boycotting!
And the long question of "What happened to OTHER five shuttles" is answered... I always thought that that image was bizzare.
Look...
I'm trying not to get personal against you here... I know you tend to get personal anyway, but I'm trying, really hard, not to respond in kind.
I have ONE ISSUE with what you're saying. It's the same issue I've had with stuff you've said since the first time I saw you post.
The issue is simple. You believe that the classic design is "dated." That is YOUR OPINION. Fine. It's your opinion... you, personally, feel that when you look at this ship, it just screams "old fashioned."
Many, many other people do not share that same personal opinion.
This is a discussion of style... nothing more, nothing less.
The issue I have with you on this issue is simple - you keep claiming that your PERSONALLY PREFERRED STYLE IS SUPERIOR. Yes, you do. You may well mean that you think that the classic design is "good" and even that you "love it" but you feel it's dated.
Here's the thing... you can feel that way, and I'm sure you do feel that way, but it doesn't make it a fact. It remains your opinion, and nothing more.
The claim that something is "dated" is a DEROGATORY TERM. Yes, "dated" is derogatory. The use of this term states that something else has come along and is better than the "dated" thing. Like how a sports car is superior to a horse-and-buggy... how an F-22 is superior to a Sopwith Camel... and so on.
The argument seems to be "well, I love Sopwith Camels but they're dated, and I prefer the F-22."
I've used the P-38 analogy, where if you were doing a WWII flick, you'd be wrong to substitute stock footage of an F-35 (assuming that it would look better and that the audience wouldn't care but would rather see a newer-looking ship). Well, if you're talking about style... consistency matters.
But if you're talking about function, "more advanced" does count for something, doesn't it?
If we're just talking "style," there's no justification for changing it. "Dated" has no relevance in that sense, does it? Styles tend to be cyclical anyway.
On the other hand, if we're talking "function," then "dated" means something. So if there's a real, rationally-drive, scientific justification for changing something... that's a different matter.
Style, or substance?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Oh, for the love of god!
Just shut the hell up!
I don't care if you think the word 'dated' is derogatory. To me it isn't.
The design IS dated. And it still like. But I also know that the Enterprise would never have been design in that way if she would have been created today for the first time.
Her general shape is iconic. The new Enterprise follows these iconic lines and brings them into todays aesthetic world.
You are, btw, not helping your arguments by bringing up that idiotic comparison between Star Trek and period-piece about WWII.
As much as I abhor that particular saying, the above is: "Quoted for Truth."
The original has something going for it that even the refit didn't (don't get me wrong, I'll always love the refit first and foremost), and that's that it looks like it was constructed with what it needed to be able to do first and foremost. As a result the 1701 appears maybe utilitarian, conservative even spartan from the outside - as it should do. Why? Because it ISN'T A GODDAMNED CAR. Anyone who wants to try and relate it to such is clearly not using an iota of common-sense: Why would a future interstellar navy pander its vessel designs to the aesthetic appreciation of civilians? Are they gonna buy one? No. Do NASA design their hardware just to "look kewl"? I sure as hell hope not! But Abrams and co. forgot this essential little pointer, which is why half of this new ship looks like it was designed by Peugeot's design team after someone hid acid in their spam.
Utilitarian doesn't become dated - it simply is what it is. This however, will do - no matter how much the "kewl" crowd argue in its favour.
On another note: Those new pylons look INCREDIBLY familiar, like they've been lifted from something else - possibly even from Episode III... anyone know what I'm talking about?
Is this the same "base" that got the original series cancelled twice in three years? The same "base" that couldn't sustain the animated series past one season? And most recently, the same "base" that struggled to keep ENT on air four seasons on a third-rate network?
I think Star Trek needs a bigger "base." And since Trekkies clearly aren't procreating enough Treklings, maybe the pledge drive could be opened up to infuse some new blood, hm?
Well, certainly not enough folks to counterbalance the millions who got bored and left between 1992 and 1999.
Make your time.
Some one set us up the bomb!!!
I have to admit, while I didn't care for the original photo of the ship from two weeks ago, that actually looks fairly decent from that angle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah; once enough folks get a good look at it in the movie this will probably become one of the more popular Enterprise designs.
So, the original Enterprise doesn't look cool? Interesting. So why would we want that in a movie now? They knew enough not to use it in a movie 30 years ago!
I swear, some people place Matt Jefferies and the Original Series on a Pedestal just a BIT too high for reality.
- Status
Similar threads
