Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

[jlee562]

Ok, you picked out an absurd moment....and?

I'm really not quite sure what your point is. It certainly doesn't rebut anything that's been said.

Simply stating that the stories are about "overcoming obstacles" is too reductionist. Everything is about overcoming obstacles. Overcoming obstacles is, in fact, fundamental to any narrative form. Overcoming of obstacles doesn't make ST stories unique.

Undiscovered Country is the most blatantly allegorical film. Not only is the situation between the Klingons and Soviets pretty blatantly obvious (overstretched military spending, explosion at energy production facility, etc, etc, etc), the film lifts DIRECTLY from history "Don't wait for the translation, answer the question!" was a line taken from when Adlai Stevenson confronted the Soviet Ambassador Zorin over Soviet nukes in Cuba on the floor of the UN.

And what is the emotional narrative of the story? Kirk has to overcome his long held prejudice against the Klingons, as well as his personal animosity against them, in order to serve the greater good of a galactic peace between two long warring parties.

This is, as Zuiun says above a story "that just happened to use "aliens" as a means to make an uncomfortable truth about humans an easier pill to swallow."

I mean, if you prefer to think of it as just humans fighting people with funny shaped foreheads, more power to you. I think you're missing a fundamental element of Star Trek though.

 

[ProfKSergeev]

Guys, guys, guys ...

 

[Mola Rob]

That's exactly why I don't like the Abrams prize... it looks like a bad comic book drawing done by somebody who's never seen the ship before. :lol

In fact the costumes have that same quality... they look like what you might THINK they look like and not actually what they do look like.

Those equipment belts and rank stripes are right off the Mego figures... :rolleyes

Apologies if this has been covered before, I didn't feel like digging back thru the thread. :lol

k

I like the Mego phaser, communicator, and tricorder much better than the ones in Trek '09. Available in two colors as well. :thumbsup

 

[CessnaDriver]

So now there's a specific number of times that earth can appear in TOS, and Abrams Trek just happened to cross the line?
yeah, TOS can do no wrong.
apparently the amount of times that Earh was the focus in TOS is the perfect amount of times earth should have appeared in the show and an exception to the rule.
As soon as earth appears in New Trek it is too many times and completely and utterly in acceptable.
It seems these "rules" are written in the fan rules book on the spot the minute TOS's flaws are compared to New Trek.



Yes, that's what it means...of course we'll just let those Earth episodes from TOS slide, of course.

Lets not forget that all of the films also hold the title of "star trek" and many of those films feature earth.

I think that if your basing a film on TOS, it should carry the essence of the series. Not just a generic action space romp.
The material deserved respect. The kind of respect Nolan gave to The Batman.
He dug into the source materials and distilled it down.
Not that JJ should try to make Bat Trek, simply he didn't give a crap to bother with why TOS was special.

 

[MooCriket]

J.J. Abrams Makes Dying Man's Wish Come True - ABC News

thumbsupThat is amazing. Thanksthumbsup. Kinda washes away all the negativity that this thread has become.

 

[Zombie_61]

See post #1123

Acknowledged, but apparently it's necessary to remind people of that once in a while.

...But these new movies should show something…..I don’t know…… NEW? (hey, weird concept!)

The problem is that Hollywood doesn't want new. Except for rare instances, their formula is "Re-use whatever made money for us in the past." :unsure

 

[Proper]

That's exactly why I don't like the Abrams prize... it looks like a bad comic book drawing done by somebody who's never seen the ship before. :lol

Brutal and insulting statement. And completely inconsiderate of the tremendous amount of research and drawing board work the designers put into this project in an effort to try to please every finicky Trekkie and their grandmother—clearly an impossible feat. You are the type of person whom I hated critiquing my work on critique day in my University design classes years ago. :confused


Sorry, but I love the design of this ship. I think it's an excellent modern translation of the 1964 design, and had I any part in its development I would be very proud of the final result—and the movie itself!

 

[jlee562]

I don't have a problem with the design of the new ship, although the lines are evocative of the 60's in kind of a kitschy way, like a hood ornament or something. But all in all I think it looks fine. The only thing that bothered me was that it was built on Earth. Even worse, apparently now it was built in Iowa, where amongst the farms there is a Starfleet shipyard for some reason.

 

[phase pistol]

Brutal and insulting statement. And completely inconsiderate of the tremendous amount of research and drawing board work the designers put into this project in an effort to try to please every finicky Trekkie and their grandmother—clearly an impossible feat. You are the type of person whom I hated critiquing my work on critique day in my University design classes years ago. :confused


Sorry, but I love the design of this ship. I think it's an excellent modern translation of the 1964 design, and had I any part in its development I would be very proud of the final result—and the movie itself!

Um, OK then. Like it all you want, there's nothing I can do about it! :lol

Andy Probert, one of the major designers behind the Refit 1701 first seen in Star Trek the Motion Picture, has noted that the Abrams design is a strange combination of a saucer section that looks very much like the Refit, but a back end that is completely fanciful and organic looking. He suggests that either an overall more Refit-looking design should have been chosen, or else the saucer too should have been made organic and swoopy to match the rest of the ship. Here's Probert's hypothetical redesign to make the ship look more unified. Remember, Probert didn't work on Abrams' movie, he's coming at this as the guy who designed the Refit Enterprise.

If you go back into the concept art, for instance in the Art of Star Trek book or in the artists' web sites, there's a ton of stuff there that looks WAY better than what ended up on the screen.

This Ryan Church concept is not so terribly different than the final ship - but it looks tons better. The version on the left preserves the proportions of the TOS enterprise - note the wide-apart engine nacelles (I challenge you to find ANY design influences from the TOS Enterprise on the final Abramsprise).

The version on the right is similar to the final in contour and shape - but it has surface detailing reminiscent of the TOS Enterprise. Also the bulbous engines are not QUITE so bulbous, and everything is just a little more trim and less cartoony.

But if you follow along, it seems like at every turn Abrams is pushing the designers to make things LESS like TOS, not "please every finicky trekkie." In fact, while I don't know the designers personally, it feels very much to me like they WERE trying to shoot for something more palatable to the fans, and weren't allowed to.

Check out this engine room design. Powerful looking and perfectly acceptable. Instead we got a beer brewery.

Another issue is the sheer size of the Enterprise. It changes throughout the film (like King Kong) but at its biggest, it scales out to more than 2,700 feet long (half a mile!). Realizing how implausible this is, designer John Eaves (Star Trek First Contact et.al) made this image as a joke

But what's the point. If you like the Abrams Enterprise, fine, go ahead. I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

Karl

 

[Proper]

Um, OK then. Like it all you want, there's nothing I can do about it! If you like the Abrams Enterprise, fine, go ahead. I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

Um, quite right.

Andy Probert, one of the major designers behind the Refit 1701 first seen in Star Trek the Motion Picture, has noted.....

Yes, and you know what they say about opinions... Interesting, though, as is true in politics, we all seek out and champion opinions that seem to support our own hypotheses. What does that prove?

I don't have a problem with the design of the new ship, although the lines are evocative of the 60's in kind of a kitschy way, like a hood ornament or something. But all in all I think it looks fine. The only thing that bothered me was that it was built on Earth. Even worse, apparently now it was built in Iowa, where amongst the farms there is a Starfleet shipyard for some reason.

Co-writer, Roberto Orci on building a starship on Earth:[/B]


Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.

They also point out that it was never established in Canon where the ORIGINAL Enterprise was built, even though its dedication plaque says "SAN FRANCISCO, CA."

 

[phase pistol]

it was never established in Canon where the ORIGINAL Enterprise was built, even though its dedication plaque says "SAN FRANCISCO, CA."

"The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface."

Stephen Whitfield Poe, "The Making of Star Trek," 1968, quoting the writer's guide to the series.

 

[phase pistol]

Yes, and you know what they say about opinions... Interesting, though, as is true in politics, we all seek out and champion opinions that seem to support our own hypotheses. What does that prove?

It proves that professional designers that worked on previous Star Trek films, who DID in fact spend a lot of time thinking about the design of the Enterprise, agree that the ship that made it to the screen has got things wrong with it. Both from a pure consistency-of design standpoint, and also from a canon standpoint.

k

 

[phase pistol]

And despite that dedication plaque, for some reason Orci has it being built in Iowa. :rolleyes

 

[Proper]

And despite that dedication plaque, for some reason Orci has it being built in Iowa. :rolleyes

Sorry, it just doesn't bother me. I appreciated the visual and emotional impact of the scene. I didn't go see the movie expecting a strict TOS derivative and thus I was able to enjoy it.

 

[Proper]

It proves that professional designers that worked on previous Star Trek films, who DID in fact spend a lot of time thinking about the design of the Enterprise, agree that the ship that made it to the screen has got things wrong with it. Both from a pure consistency-of design standpoint, and also from a canon standpoint.

k

No, actually it only proves that everyone has an opinion—some more qualified perhaps than others. But that's all this is: an issue of aesthetics and a matter of opinion.

Clearly, the folks who designed the new Enterprise got paid for their work, and others who did not, did not...

 

[rodneyfaile]

Roddenberry's utopian vision was a world beyond money. I don't know that I would call that socialism per se.

I think it is far more likely that we are headed to the Ridley Scott vision of corporations running everything. I wish politicians would just wear decals like race cars so at least it would be easier to tell who we are really dealing with.

 

[Jeyl]

Sorry, it just doesn't bother me. I appreciated the visual and emotional impact of the scene.

Because looking up at the stars and wondering what is out there is for pansies.

Scotty: My sister's youngest Admiral. Crazy to get to space.
Kirk: Every young man's fantasy. I seem to remember it myself.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

Brutal and insulting statement. And completely inconsiderate of the tremendous amount of research and drawing board work the designers put into this project in an effort to try to please every finicky Trekkie and their grandmother—clearly an impossible feat. You are the type of person whom I hated critiquing my work on critique day in my University design classes years ago. :confused


Sorry, but I love the design of this ship. I think it's an excellent modern translation of the 1964 design, and had I any part in its development I would be very proud of the final result—and the movie itself!

I was going to reply to this, but Phase Pistol said everything I wanted to much better than I could, so props to him.

 

[greatwazoo42]

I was going to reply to this, but Phase Pistol said everything I wanted to much better than I could, so props to him.

Yeah, Phase does that. thumbsup

 

[SSgt Burton]

Regarding where the Enterprise was built...

You guys do know the catch-all answer is the alternate timeline yes?

I'm not saying it's a "good" answer, but it is "the" answer.


They wiped the slate clean guys. They don't have to pay "a lot" of attention to nitpicky details because this is an alternate universe.



Kevin