Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

[DARTH SABER]

Yeah, the game is up. They change things all the time.

Doesn't mean that any and every change is acceptable no matter what it is, though.

Which once again brings me to me previous point- TOS can do no wrong.

If you care, Roddenberry said at the time that the Klingons in TMP looked different because in the TV show, they didn't have the budget to do anything interesting with the Klingon makeup.

k

Yes, Im aware of this...But the fact still remains, budget or not, Klingons were already established as not having head ridges. Canon should have dictated that their look the same in the films. I personaly dont have an issue with the head ridges, Im just pointing out the inconsistency in canon as compared to JJ Trek.

For the movie they did. So that's how the Klingons "always would have looked" if they had had the money to do it in the Sixties.

And for the movies they also had a budget for more action and FX...But apparently that's a No-no when it comes to JJ Trek.

 

[phase pistol]

Seriously though, you can justify anything that's hypothetical.

You seem to be suggesting that everything is equally acceptable, or that nothing is preferable to anything else. Your guess is as good as mine, six of one half a dozen of another, nothing matters. Wow.

The brewery? Well, that made a good engine room because of all the coolant liquid you would need for the (suddenly multiple) warp cores. What? You don't need coolant for warp cores? Says who?

I think it was more because it was cheaper to film there rather than build a giant engine room set. Also it had big pipes that could be used for the (hilarious!) scene of Scotty accidentally beaming into one and nearly drowning to death. Ah, that Scotty, what a comic relief guy.

Oh, a sphere is the strongest shape? That's why we use it in our spacecraft, right?

It was the original idea but they changed their minds.

The Enterprise is not an actual spacecraft and not everything about it is scientifically correct. :cool

But the point is, while the original Enterprise may have been thought up with its own internal logic; it's arbitrary to begin with because we're talking about a make believe space ship which does things beyond the capacity of human technological innovation. And if the nacelles are so dangerous and need to be away from the body of the ship, somebody sure messed up on the Reliant.

Secondly, unless you were on the design team, or privy to the details of those meetings, I do think it's a mite insulting to those who did work on the new Enterprise to imply that there was no thought put into it.

Arbitrary... NO. The line must be drawn... HYEAH!

But this is a waste of time. I am not insulting the design team. As I said before I think some of what they came up with was pretty good, but they weren't allowed to pursue it.

I am probably insulting JJ Abrams but something tells me he's prepared to take it. :rolleyes


k

 

[DARTH SABER]

Sorry, there is no "right or wrong" when it comes to art and design theres just just a matter if opinion. Art is subjective.

I should also know this considering I've done plenty of concept designs for games, commercials and films.

I just wanted to expand on my previous comment about right and wrong with designs. I was posting on my Iphone and just wrote down a quick answrr.
There are certain rules for creating designs which are proven to result in the most pleasing results. However, Ryan Church adhered to virtually all these rules. I myself only have small gripes about the enterprise design- The nacells could have been slightly thinner and they could have been spaced further apart. That's just my opinion though. For the most part, I think the design looks great.

Personally, I think the enterprise from TNG and the Enterprise E are the worst designs of the bunch.

 

[phase pistol]

And for the movies they also had a budget for more action and FX...But apparently that's a No-no when it comes to JJ Trek.

Because he didn't make it better, he just made it different.

He made it more appealing to that Transformers audience that just wants to watch stuff blow up.

I never said TOS could do no wrong. TOS did a lot wrong, the third season is nearly unwatchable.

The only two decent TOS movies are TMP and Wrath of Khan.

Don't get me started on the Next Generation films.

But that's it, you see! I am not saying "it was perfect before and you busted it all up, you mean childhood-raping JJ Abrams man you!"

I am saying, "wow, some of this is quite spectacular, like the opening scene with the Kelvin. I like some of what you built here. But some of it is kind of annoying. Some of it makes no sense to me, and some of it seems to be there just to **** off the old fans and show people something they haven't seen before."

Some things we haven't seen before because it makes no sense to see them. Enterprise being built on the ground in Iowa. People beaming interstellar distances onto a moving ship at an unknown location. Starships loitering on the bottom of the ocean.

k

 

[DARTH SABER]

Because he didn't make it better, he just made it different.

The overwhelming amount of positive reviews and the box office numbers say otherwise....People dont just plunk down money for repeat viewings for a movie that isnt good.

He made it more appealing to that Transformers audience that just wants to watch stuff blow up.

Really? Im not a transformers fan and I liked it. Im more of a "Day the Earth Stood Still", "Andromeda Strain", "2001", "Metropolis", "Matrix" sci fi fan....Which doesnt mean it cant have some action or FX with my sci-fi.

I never said TOS could do no wrong. TOS did a lot wrong, the third season is nearly unwatchable.

Well, your statement is a rarety on this board because nearly every flaw or inconsistency listed in this thread regarding TOS in comparison to JJ Trek has quickly had some sort of fabricated justification to give it a free pass (excuses to the point of absurdity).

 

[jlee562]

You seem to be suggesting that everything is equally acceptable, or that nothing is preferable to anything else. Your guess is as good as mine, six of one half a dozen of another, nothing matters. Wow.

No, I'm not saying that nothing is preferable to anything else. I do suggest that your preference for the TOS Enterprise design is predicated on it simply being the original ship and not for any logical and/or empirical reasons of design, because at the end of the day, the decisions made in the original design were completely arbitrary because no real world technology exists as a starting point for their work.

Yes, its all well and good to say "Oh, well the engines are so powerful that they have to be away from the body," well, ok, yeah. But they just as well may have been part of the body with unobtanium shielding in engineering.

The Enterprise is not an actual spacecraft and not everything about it is scientifically correct. :cool

Exactly. So what difference does the size of the nacelles make, really? Other than the fact that they're bigger than the TOS ones, what does it really matter? It's all make believe anyway.

But this is a waste of time. I am not insulting the design team. As I said before I think some of what they came up with was pretty good, but they weren't allowed to pursue it.

If I had worked on the ship, and I read someone saying that "But the fact that the makers at least gave it some thought," which directly implies that no thought went into the new ship, yeah, I'd be insulted. You've also implied with quotes that you have insight into the filmmaker's head, which I also find to be spurious.

At least I put some thought into my posts.

Zing!

(C'mon, doesn't the inference that you don't put any thought into your posts bother you a little bit when you went to the effort to insert all those images?).

In all seriousness, no hard feelings, the above was said in jest. After all, it's a make believe ship.

 

[DARTH SABER]

Very clever, you almost had me. But movie making is not purely art. :lol

Go back and read how Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry struggled to define the design of the original Enterprise. Go back and see how, in the mid-1970s, the Enterprise was re-designed for a possible TV show, and then the movies. Look at how the 1701-D was conceived for Next Generation.

There may not be "right and wrong", but there is intentional vs arbitrary. There is style vs function. There is "it looks like it does something" vs "it just looks cool."

The process should be more than just subjective, at least if you care about more than just the surface appearance of things. And I happen to.

k

The problem here is that we're not talking about a real world object like a car or a jet. We're talking about a fictional spacecraft that's functionality is determined by fiction.

 

[Bryancd]

The overwhelming amount of positive reviews and the box office numbers say otherwise....People dont just plunk down money for repeat viewings for a movie that isnt good.

Yeah, as I mentioned...pages ago, this thread is so OT it makes me dizzy, my wife liked this film and that's a first for her and sic-fi, so clearly the film had broad based appeal. I think it catered well enough to the older fans and was fun for a new audience. I disagree, Karl, that it was "Transformers" like in style, I loathed those films and I think it's unfair to compare them and their sensibility, ot lack thereof, to what STAR TREK '09 was on screen. There were some very nice and quality character moments throughout the film, IMO.

 

[phase pistol]

I originally posted that I thought the JJ Prize looked like somebody's bad cartoon drawing of the TOS Enterprise, and guess what, I'm right. It does.

Nobody can make me like that version of the ship, and I guess I can't make anybody else see what it is that bugs me about it either.

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the Enterprise E either. But I do like the 1701-D.

k

 

[Bryancd]

(C'mon, doesn't the inference that you don't put any thought into your posts bother you a little bit when you went to the effort to insert all those images?).

Karl is the KING of screen caps and rare images.

 

[nwjedidave]

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the Enterprise E either.

k

Karl:
that makes baby ***** cry when you say that! :confused

 

[phase pistol]

As penance I have forced myself to watch Star Trek V.

(Shudder)

 

[nickytea]

Because he didn't make it better, he just made it different.

He made it more appealing to that Transformers audience that just wants to watch stuff blow up.

I object to this.
Denigrating supporters because your own staunch rubric of world-building wasn't adhered to comes off as short sighted at best, and insulting at worst.

Karl, you admit that your interest in Trek lies more with the world of the narrative rather than any prominent aspects of the narrative itself. Everyone has their own unique attachment to these stories. Why cast stones at those that connect with it on another level?

I saw this movie many times with packed houses. The explosions and action beasts weren't getting the audible responses. It was the character dynamics. The story beats. It resounded with people. It used its science fiction premise -- and setting -- to tell a universally human story. (One day, when the stench of Jeyl's inconsiderate spew has passed, I'd like to discuss the finer points of that narrative here.)

You also must admit, Karl, that you have a very niche interest in this property. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't have a lot of Dicken's-lovers reading A Tale of Two Cities for the nooks and crannies of Paris and London.

The world of Trek is a setting. A stage on which the story proper can take place. We consider the Big E a character because this is a prop board.

Lastly, I can't help but think a lot of the aesthetic preference here comes with a very healthy dose of nostalgia. Again, nothing wrong with that, but worth considering when you realize that maybe others might be looking at these new designs with a sense of perpetual nostalgia for what their legacy might be.

 

[phase pistol]

I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Proper]

I object to this.
Denigrating supporters because your own staunch rubric of world-building wasn't adhered to comes off as short sighted at best, and insulting at worst.

Karl, you admit that your interest in Trek lies more with the world of the narrative rather than any prominent aspects of the narrative itself. Everyone has their own unique attachment to these stories. Why cast stones at those that connect with it on another level?

I saw this movie many times with packed houses. The explosions and action beasts weren't getting the audible responses. It was the character dynamics. The story beats. It resounded with people. It used its science fiction premise -- and setting -- to tell a universally human story. (One day, when the stench of Jeyl's inconsiderate spew has passed, I'd like to discuss the finer points of that narrative here.)

You also must admit, Karl, that you have a very niche interest in this property. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't have a lot of Dicken's-lovers reading A Tale of Two Cities for the nooks and crannies of Paris and London.

The world of Trek is a setting. A stage on which the story proper can take place. We consider the Big E a character because this is a prop board.

Lastly, I can't help but think a lot of the aesthetic preference here comes with a very healthy dose of nostalgia. Again, nothing wrong with that, but worth considering when you realize that maybe others might be looking at these new designs with a sense of perpetual nostalgia for what their legacy might be.

Well said, Nick. The Trek-world indeed is a large vehicle of more than just science and pseudo science, of units and measures real or made-up. It is a stage for artists who may care some or little about what the previous performer did on-stage in pursuit of his/her own talents. Trek offers much more than the sum of its physical parts, and oftentimes a very detail-oriented intellectual fan sadly falls into the trap of focusing on the physical science of Trek as if it were real and has difficulty seeing the forest for the trees, which is the enjoyment of the experience as performance and cinematic art and storytelling. Whom does that really hurt?

 

[Jeyl]

I saw this movie many times with packed houses. The explosions and action beasts weren't getting the audible responses. It was the character dynamics. The story beats. It resounded with people. It used its science fiction premise -- and setting -- to tell a universally human story. (One day, when the stench of Jeyl's inconsiderate spew has passed, I'd like to discuss the finer points of that narrative here.)

Don't let that stop you nickytea. By all means, how would you describe the 'human' aspect of the story? What is it about Star Trek that must only be associated with the 'human' aspect of story telling? In fact, what makes it a universally human story?

 

[greatwazoo42]

That it has humans in it.

 

[Jeyl]

That it has humans in it.

Don't you think that the almost half a century old Star Trek franchise with it's different approaches and different interpretations can be labeled as something more than just a mere Allegory of Humanity? I think Star Trek does a better job at being what it is when it explores 'ideas'. Plural. Being an allegory of Humanity is just one idea, and it's a good idea. But the franchise has done other ideas that don't directly involve human problems that gives Star Trek it's special identity.

Did you know that on the Season 2 BluRay set of the original series that The Trouble With Tribbles was given it's very own dedicated BluRay disc? It's the only episode in all of the original Star Trek series that has a commentary track, and it even includes all of the corresponding Star Trek episodes that featured the Tribbles as part of the story. Did "City on the Edge of Forever" get such treatment? Or any other episode where it tried to reflect on the current events we were going through in the real world? No. The Trouble with Tribbles is regarded by many fans to be one of the series' best, and for good reason. It's fun, clever, and it has our characters doing something "Star Trek". As in, trying to deal with newly discovered life form that they don't understand that you wouldn't find in any other series. Sure, you may argue that the Tribbles were a reflection of animals destroying human crops, or the Klingons being soviets, but when in our 'human' history have we ever used a rabbit to sniff out a communist insurgent?

 

[greatwazoo42]

 

[Proper]

Your argument is invalid

​