Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
You might want to reconsider that "absolutely won't" phrase; anyone who believes that doesn't understand what a good model (real or CGI), good lighting and good cinematography can do. But to offer proof that it can work, Vektor's update of the iconic 1701:
Desktop01
Desktop02
"To Far Horizons"
Desktop04
Desktop05
WIP_004
WIP_008
WIP_009
WIP_010
You can't honestly claim this "absolutely won't work" on the big screen.
As many people here who do like the new ship have claimed that, to the non-fans, it 'looks just like the iconic Enterprise,' then even the new ship signals that same message. That's why I fail to comprehend any defense of it - its differences are unrecognizable to non-fans, the target audience, so why even do it? Just polish up the original enough, as we see can be done quite well by someone with talent, skill and imagination, and then you satisfy a greater cross-section of your potential audience. Hard-core fans may be in the minority, but their money is every bit as good as that of non-fans - maybe better, because if people know enough about Star Trek to not like it, "reimagining" it isn't going to change their minds and drag them into the theaters. There's a gaping disconnect in Paramount's logic there.
Hey, these guys wanna join the party!
Because Nemesis proved that a movie could survive with only the hard-core fans paying to see it
for the same reason fashion changes. for the same reason architecture changes. for the same reason car designs change. for the same reason furnishings change. for the same reasons television shows change. for the same reason any particular look of something is changed. simply put, society's taste changes and something that's being redone needs to try and keep up. people used to think voluptuous women were the epitomy of beauty. however, now those same people would be regarded as chunky or maybe even fat and society is more geared towards the toned slim looking woman. not to say one is more beautiful than the other. it's just it's just based on which one the current society prefers.
i personally wasn't into the old ship. i grew up with the enterprise d and to me that IS the enterprise and is simply beautiful and still my favorite ship. i know it's not what everyone prefers, but i do. it's just in the eye of the beholder. i'm sure people think that the enterprise d is also quite dated, but at the time it looked modern, but as our design and tech moves on, imagined future objects look more and more dated as they are based on that time's view of the future. the goal of remaking something old is reconcile the design to be more relevant to current views of tech to make it easier to be immersed in it. i'm surprised they even kept as much of the original enterprise as they did. i would surmise that not only is it a salute to the original, but also a bow to current trend of having things look retro yet not dated. to me it looks odd though. probably as odd as having cars in our streets right now with looks based on cars of the 20s. although they are beautiful, they will look odd as i am used to something else, as you are used to having the enterprise looking a certain way.
The non-fans will obviously notice the difference between TOS Enterprise and Abram's Enterprise. Give them a choice between which one looks more futuristic and most will point to the re-imagined one. This new Enterprise will join the ranks of the new sleek cars, airplanes, and gadgets that people want today.
I think the current incarnation of the Ford Mustang proves this point well. It echoes designs of some of the much older versions, yet with enough sleek that says 21st Century aesthetic.
Flawed analogy: this is fiction about events that haven't happened yet, and not a historical piece.
You're using an example of the past to paint a past into the present that is about the future.
I've gone cross-eyed.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
So? As far as things have progressed for the franchise, this is a part of its "history", so what if it's just a show? It's supposed to be taken seriously as a drama, right? Are you so close-minded that you won't consider an analogy that disagrees with your viewpoint?
No, as analogies are supposed to show other viewpoints. I'm saying, you can't really categorize something like a period piece of the past to compare to a period piece of the future, especially an imagined, morphable, fantasy-based one.
Heck, Trek already has an example like this: how many ships have been reimagined in the Remastered version? Or Enterprise? And has that ever damaged the narrative? No. Because it's in a future that's both fictional and (ironically, considering your post) flexible. The Battle of Britain is real. The events of yesterday are real. But Star Trek is not, and aspects of fiction change. This is why there are so many contemporary versions of Shakespeare, even though the stories were always set centuries ago.
They changed it so they could sell licensed merchandise to all the fans they ditched when making this (toys, models and action figures). Hope Paramount thought this through... because those people may not be there when this is done. Forty years of merchandising *poof*, with one ill-conceived summer movie.
I'm a bit more concerned about Trek's "history" being changed than I am about the ship being changed. If we are to believe that Nero has somehow "changed" history, shouldn't we see what was "supposed" to have originally happened? If we get a bad story, the movie will flop, period.
Not necessarily. Some on here think Transformers is a bad movie and look where that went.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Why not? I'm working with the confines of the show and this is the show's "history".
Remastered actually could have gone further in detailing the ship, but everything else they did only expanded on what was already there, yet remained entirely consistent with the rest of the franchise.
Continuity issues and ripping off a 24th century ship design damaged its credibility and unimaginative storytelling doomed it to failure. Yet it was still less of a brain fart that Abrams totally rebooting the entire franchise like he is with this movie.
Don't hold your breath. According to EJO, it's gonna be a downer. I really hope he's kidding.
Ah well, January's not far off. We'll know for certain who the fifth is.
Ah well, January's not far off. We'll know for certain who the fifth is.
V'ger is the Fifth Cylon!
And we still have to see how that history plays out in this movie. After all, there's the possibility that the redesign of, well, anything, is a side-effect of Nero's involvement.
I recall how Phil Farrand pointed out in "The Nitpicker's Guide to TNG" that, because of the Enterprise-C travelling through the rift, that the Enterprise-D should've been radically changed as well (he did forgive the show because of production costs for one lone episode). How do we know that's not the case this time around? There's always the case of flexibility, especially when it comes to time an Wibbly-Wobbly, Timey-Wimey.
Heck, Trek already has an example like this: how many ships have been reimagined in the Remastered version?[/quote]Remastered actually could have gone further in detailing the ship, but everything else they did only expanded on what was already there, yet remained entirely consistent with the rest of the franchise. [/quote]
In the Remastered versions, there are several ships and probes and like that had been completely overhauled. A shuttle that was just a flying saucer is now intricate and detailed with lots of doodads as if it were from Voyager, for example. In insides of androids look more advanced than the inside of an iPhone, nevermind a completely different 1960s aesthetic. How is change on that magnitude justified for some parts of Trek and not for others?
And yet Friendship One in Voyager looked a heckuva lot more functional than the TOS Enterprise. So did the Phoenix, despite its near steam-punk appearance.
See, there's a conflict when there doesn't need to be: if it's a reboot, what does a "fictional" historical accuracy matter? Everything is up for grabs. And if it's not a reboot, wouldn't the effects of time travel do something there, especially given Trek's experience in such matters? In either case, sticking to an "historical" appearance is moot.
- Status
Similar threads
