Yeah - i SCREWED up the spelling of his name - or you could say I REBOOTED his name.
JJ ABRAMS Enterprise
- Thread starter Jet Beetle
- Start date
Yeah - i SCREWED up the spelling of his name - or you could say I REBOOTED his name.
Serafino
Sr Member
Okay so am I really the first to find this SECOND youtube take on the new Enterprise?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKnqhwk0Hw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKnqhwk0Hw
AnubisGuard
Master Member
For anyone interetsed, Trekmovie just released two new images of the U.S.S. Kelvin from the beginning of the film.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
That's actually a criticism I've heard of AMBRANS (LOL Still getting a chuckle out of that...) before -- namely that he thinks "small screen" and shoots in that visual style. Tight shots, shots where you have a large background but it's blurred in favor of the character in the foreground, etc. MI:3 actually got some flak for this as I recall.
Anyway, I suspect that the designers can mollify a lot of the hardcore "hard sci-fi" fans by explaining the engineering benefits of some of the changes. Like, for example, "We added a lot of curves because generally speaking a curved surface is going to be more structurally stable and less prone to pressure or depressurization than a straight line or hard edge." Or whatever. (I'm a lawyer, not a scientist.) If they can do that, it might take away some of the sting of "differentness" of the new design and make it seem less like it's different for the sake of being different.
As for those who don't get the long post about merging cigar and saucer designs and stuff, this kidn of gets back to the "wooden ships" thing I was talking about. You design primarily for function (especially with military vessels), but you can still throw in some style if you've got the ability and resources to do so. So, a swept back wedge shaped strut not only looks "faster" and "cooler", it also is less prone to shearing forces (which will still be a factor even in zero atmosphere and zero gravity -- I think).
That's actually a criticism I've heard of AMBRANS (LOL Still getting a chuckle out of that...) before -- namely that he thinks "small screen" and shoots in that visual style. Tight shots, shots where you have a large background but it's blurred in favor of the character in the foreground, etc. MI:3 actually got some flak for this as I recall.
Anyway, I suspect that the designers can mollify a lot of the hardcore "hard sci-fi" fans by explaining the engineering benefits of some of the changes. Like, for example, "We added a lot of curves because generally speaking a curved surface is going to be more structurally stable and less prone to pressure or depressurization than a straight line or hard edge." Or whatever. (I'm a lawyer, not a scientist.) If they can do that, it might take away some of the sting of "differentness" of the new design and make it seem less like it's different for the sake of being different.
As for those who don't get the long post about merging cigar and saucer designs and stuff, this kidn of gets back to the "wooden ships" thing I was talking about. You design primarily for function (especially with military vessels), but you can still throw in some style if you've got the ability and resources to do so. So, a swept back wedge shaped strut not only looks "faster" and "cooler", it also is less prone to shearing forces (which will still be a factor even in zero atmosphere and zero gravity -- I think).
dualedge
Sr Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Good points, K!
One of these days, I hope we see a modern scifi movie that does use saucer shaped vehicles. I hope they keep that intact at least when they do the Forbidden Planet remake.
The one thing about the classic Enterprise that always confused me though was why the saucer section has to be attached to the engineering section via a big column instead of just integrating the two sort of how it is with the Enterprise E or Voyager designs.
That always seemed to be a better look to me and still keeps the nacelles out away from the rest of the ship. I always thought it was also cool that Voyager COULD land when it needed to.
Rob
Good points, K!
One of these days, I hope we see a modern scifi movie that does use saucer shaped vehicles. I hope they keep that intact at least when they do the Forbidden Planet remake.
The one thing about the classic Enterprise that always confused me though was why the saucer section has to be attached to the engineering section via a big column instead of just integrating the two sort of how it is with the Enterprise E or Voyager designs.
That always seemed to be a better look to me and still keeps the nacelles out away from the rest of the ship. I always thought it was also cool that Voyager COULD land when it needed to.
Rob
nickytea
Master Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Did I miss where a narrow depth of field is a "small screen" visual trademark?
Did I miss where a narrow depth of field is a "small screen" visual trademark?
franz bolo
Sr Member
Noeland
Master Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Except for the LOST premier, which was hailed as being "cinematic", and LOST season 1 had been credited with bringing film quality production values to TV.
I don't agree with the criticism, obviously. I didn't love MI3, but it was certainly better than most of the other action flicks that came out that year. It didn't feel like I was watching a TV show.
I've heard a lot of people level the same shot at Joss Whedon for Serenity, and I never agreed with that either.
Except for the LOST premier, which was hailed as being "cinematic", and LOST season 1 had been credited with bringing film quality production values to TV.
I don't agree with the criticism, obviously. I didn't love MI3, but it was certainly better than most of the other action flicks that came out that year. It didn't feel like I was watching a TV show.
I've heard a lot of people level the same shot at Joss Whedon for Serenity, and I never agreed with that either.
AshGL1914
Sr Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
It just truly seems that from the officially released picture above, and descriptions of the official clips of the film released to the press, and comments made by JJ, and the stars of STAR TREK, that this is in NO way OUR beloved Star Trek converted to the big screen. We’re not going to see Jim Kirk as we knew him to be. By this, I mean that if (and just please bear with me here for a second) we are the sum of our experiences growing up, than this Kirk is different. No longer the straight-laced student, but now a kind of hot headed Maverick rehash from Top Gun. The new ship, the description of Kirk in the 20 minutes of film shown in Germany, and the new direction of this film all point to a fundamental change to STAR TREK. And that is NOT what Bad Robot has been telling the fans over the last year. What the picture of the Enterprise really represents is the tip of the iceberg that may well sink the whole “Enterprise” for many years to come. Please make no mistake, I wish the entire production staff of STAR TREK success on opening day (and I’ll be there), but did we really have to Michael Bay STAR TREK down to the lowest common denominator to make a successful film? I have grown tired over the last few years of films and TV that caters to the great dummed down masses of Americans that keep reality shows and American Idol on the air when clever intelligent shows like Arrested Development die a quick death (no matter how many Emmy’s it won). STAR TREK always rose above the pack in both story, visual impact, and moral substance. This new venture seams to go down the same path Hollywood has been taking us down for many years now. IDIOCRACY indeed.
John
It just truly seems that from the officially released picture above, and descriptions of the official clips of the film released to the press, and comments made by JJ, and the stars of STAR TREK, that this is in NO way OUR beloved Star Trek converted to the big screen. We’re not going to see Jim Kirk as we knew him to be. By this, I mean that if (and just please bear with me here for a second) we are the sum of our experiences growing up, than this Kirk is different. No longer the straight-laced student, but now a kind of hot headed Maverick rehash from Top Gun. The new ship, the description of Kirk in the 20 minutes of film shown in Germany, and the new direction of this film all point to a fundamental change to STAR TREK. And that is NOT what Bad Robot has been telling the fans over the last year. What the picture of the Enterprise really represents is the tip of the iceberg that may well sink the whole “Enterprise” for many years to come. Please make no mistake, I wish the entire production staff of STAR TREK success on opening day (and I’ll be there), but did we really have to Michael Bay STAR TREK down to the lowest common denominator to make a successful film? I have grown tired over the last few years of films and TV that caters to the great dummed down masses of Americans that keep reality shows and American Idol on the air when clever intelligent shows like Arrested Development die a quick death (no matter how many Emmy’s it won). STAR TREK always rose above the pack in both story, visual impact, and moral substance. This new venture seams to go down the same path Hollywood has been taking us down for many years now. IDIOCRACY indeed.
John
misterfusion
Sr Member
I'm assuming the propulsion unit on the underside of the Kelvin isn't a warp nacelle seeing as it's stuck right to the bottom of the saucer.
I thought the whole reason behind the nacelles being stuck on pylons was to keep them away from the habituated areas of the ship...
I thought the whole reason behind the nacelles being stuck on pylons was to keep them away from the habituated areas of the ship...
bcstanding
Well-Known Member
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Hear, hear! I think the naval style battles "feel right" for Trek and it's jarring to watch those big ships fly around like they're in a dogfight.
Hear, hear! I think the naval style battles "feel right" for Trek and it's jarring to watch those big ships fly around like they're in a dogfight.
misterfusion
Sr Member
Well, maybe not plastered directly to the bottom, but certainly a lot closer than we've seen, no?
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
The Jim Kirk of TOS was a hardcore "Starfleet First" type of guy, not a convert. He believed in the "military" right to his core, but like MacArthur, sometimes bent the rules and did it his way, because he felt he knew best. But his career was an extension of his belief system. The Kirk described in the scene descriptions is not that man.
_Mike
The Jim Kirk of TOS was a hardcore "Starfleet First" type of guy, not a convert. He believed in the "military" right to his core, but like MacArthur, sometimes bent the rules and did it his way, because he felt he knew best. But his career was an extension of his belief system. The Kirk described in the scene descriptions is not that man.
_Mike
I think the nacelle is likely attached with a simiular pylon as the secondaty hull above the primary in that pic.
franz bolo
Sr Member
Now I'm not to excited about that ship!! It looks rather odd.
FB
FB
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Interesting post, and I'll try to be respectful in my strong disagreement of it
I think this post very accurately captures the sentiments of MANY trek fans, while at the same time revealing the limits of their vision. It clearly demonstrates how the hard core trek fan has romanticised the history of trek, turning it into something that it never truly was.
You mention the perils of pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet ST:IV, which gained critical praise and hoards of new fans did exactly that. It was a tree hugging, feel-good space comedy. They broke ALL the rules of trek for that movie, yet it did the franchise a giant service.
For the sake of full disclosure, i should point out that i consider myself to be a hard core fan, by the way
I just disagree with all this talk about how trek has always been about values, continuity, and good story telling.
I believe it to be FACT that TOS was a low budget hack job that looks and feels terrible. It was, after all, cancelled after three short seasons. The fact that it gained a cult following does not logically confirm that it is a quality show... merely that a bunch of people took a liking to it. TONS of people watch American Idol. Is that necessary and sufficient proof that it's a good show? Hardly.
Dude, are you kidding me? Did you watch a SINGLE episode of Voyager? Enterprise? a good half of TNG?? UTTER CRAP television. Visual impact? are you kidding? No matter how you slice it, the TOS sets were utter crap. In fact, they are the go-to example of cheesy sets for television whenever a discussion about poor production values comes up. You never hear anyone say "remember those cheesy cardboard sets on I Love Lucy?". Its always trek.
My point is, we've translated our love for a television show into a claim that it is quality. We've confused emotional attachment for high quality drama. For this reason, we've concluded that because thre three photos we've seen so far of the new movie do not fit our vision of Love that we've been clinging to for however many years, it must be low quality. I just don't buy it.
Oh, and please let me play the "Didn't we have this same discussion about BSG" card at this time. Give it a chance, people!! The shape of the nacelles isn't going to matter if it's a great story with compelling characters. I remember people having the same hissy fits when they rolled out pictures of the 1701-D. So silly.
Interesting post, and I'll try to be respectful in my strong disagreement of it
I think this post very accurately captures the sentiments of MANY trek fans, while at the same time revealing the limits of their vision. It clearly demonstrates how the hard core trek fan has romanticised the history of trek, turning it into something that it never truly was.
You mention the perils of pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet ST:IV, which gained critical praise and hoards of new fans did exactly that. It was a tree hugging, feel-good space comedy. They broke ALL the rules of trek for that movie, yet it did the franchise a giant service.
For the sake of full disclosure, i should point out that i consider myself to be a hard core fan, by the way
I just disagree with all this talk about how trek has always been about values, continuity, and good story telling.
I believe it to be FACT that TOS was a low budget hack job that looks and feels terrible. It was, after all, cancelled after three short seasons. The fact that it gained a cult following does not logically confirm that it is a quality show... merely that a bunch of people took a liking to it. TONS of people watch American Idol. Is that necessary and sufficient proof that it's a good show? Hardly.
Dude, are you kidding me? Did you watch a SINGLE episode of Voyager? Enterprise? a good half of TNG?? UTTER CRAP television. Visual impact? are you kidding? No matter how you slice it, the TOS sets were utter crap. In fact, they are the go-to example of cheesy sets for television whenever a discussion about poor production values comes up. You never hear anyone say "remember those cheesy cardboard sets on I Love Lucy?". Its always trek.
My point is, we've translated our love for a television show into a claim that it is quality. We've confused emotional attachment for high quality drama. For this reason, we've concluded that because thre three photos we've seen so far of the new movie do not fit our vision of Love that we've been clinging to for however many years, it must be low quality. I just don't buy it.
Oh, and please let me play the "Didn't we have this same discussion about BSG" card at this time. Give it a chance, people!! The shape of the nacelles isn't going to matter if it's a great story with compelling characters. I remember people having the same hissy fits when they rolled out pictures of the 1701-D. So silly.
