JJ ABRAMS Enterprise

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Well actually according to a comment left by Robert Orci on Trekmovie.com yesterday, the official explanation is not reboot or reimagining, but rather First Contact introduced the borg into the 21st century, which led to the Enterprise series, which led to this movie.


So what you're saying is that we should hate Rick Berman for the new Trek movie. Okay, I hate him now..... :lol
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I'm somewhat torn. It's not the Original old girl, but she's a pretty ship for sure.
Seeing as the film is a reboot, I think it could have been much worse.

-Rabittooth
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

"First Contact introduced the Borg into the 21st Century..."

Well that's ANOTHER problem..... :lol

OK so let me get this straight. The Borg, the unstoppable enemy from "Best of Both Worlds" (but which gradually became weak and irrelevant, as in "I Borg", "Descent", "First Contact", "Voyager", etc)... the Borg are now NOT totally wiped out in First Contact, we are "canonizing" Star Trek Enterprise's continuity, and relegating STAR TREK TOS to the dustbin of alternate history? :lol:angry
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Target sure sells a lot more Star Wars toys than it does Star Trek toys. :lol

Just you wait - next year there will be a slew of bad enterprise toys on those shelves --


but Trek will never outsell Star Wars in the toy dept. Hell, I don't know if any toy out there outsells Star Wars stuff
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Well if your only criterion is toy sales.... well yes, Star Wars beats the hell out of Star Trek, hands down. :lol

At any rate I propose we table this whole "Wars vs Trek" discussion in the thread here... we should focus on the matters at hand, namely the Abrams movie. Specifically the question of whether it will totally suck, or just kind of suck.
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

To preface this, I should say that I'm a Trek fan, but not a Trekkie. I own the whole original series and enjoy it both for its excellent sci-fi stories and for its cheesy campy fun. When I watch TOS, I watch it on the first "color case" DVD releases because I like seeing the old effects. For their time they were pretty damn good and I appreciate that. I also really enjoyed TNG. Past that point I pretty much stopped watching. Didn't watch DS9 or Voyager except for the occasional episode, and didn't watch much of Enterprise after the first few episodes of the first season. I loved First Contact, although I recognized that it broke a lot of continuity stuff -- but that's something that I've come to expect from a universe as sprawling as Trek.

In my opinion, Trek needs a "Crisis on Infinite Worlds" to rectify continuity, or someone has to take a friggin' stand about what's in and what's out. The development from TOS and the TOS movies through to TNG made sense. As with the developments in DS9, Voyager, and the TNG movies (which sucked in the last two, by the way). Enterprise broke things, for me, though in that it seemed more futuristic than TOS. And therein lies your problem. You have, at the core, a 1960s era design sensibility in TOS clashing with 1990s-and-beyond design sensibilities and as far as I can tell, visually speaking, there is no way to explain the differences given what is now "canon" as what came before. With Enterprise, you open the door to pretty much chucking TOS out the window.

So, I go into the Abrams film expecting a complete reboot, which, in my view, negates all that came before (much like with the Bond series and the Batman series). Go ahead and watch the originals, but don't expect Abrams to be anything but a full reboot that maintains ELEMENTS of the original.

Ok, that said, here are my thoughts:

1.) On the ship design, my take is...meh. I'm totally neutral about it. I agree that it looks less functional and more stylish for the sake of being stylish. I accept SOME of that, but I agree that the doctored photos look way better than the official one.

2.) When did "red" cease to be futuristic and only "blue" or "green" counted? I think it might've been with The Matrix and their whole "green" theme. Or maybe apple with its iMac white and "blue" theme. Anyway, don't throw "red" out, in my opinion.

3.) The proportions DO look funky. Like, "hot rod" Enterprise with those suped-up engine nacelles. The saucer is really really big, but the engines are even bigger. Some of that strikes me as the "change for change's sake" issue, but again, given that I see this film as a total reboot, I don't expect anything else.



I think the biggest problem with "Where the hell does THIS fit in the continuity?!" issue is the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy. By including him, it's as if the producers are saying that the new film SOMEHOW connects to the original TV series (and TOS films), without explaining how you reconcile all the OTHER obvious differences.

My advice? Rather than go through mental contortions over fitting the new film into the old continuity, try looking at it from a different angle. Namely, that Leonard Nimoy's inclusion is purely a marketing ploy. That's it. His presence does not denote ANY connection to the original series or the overall continuity. Any statements to the contrary are LIES designed to placate fans who can't handle a reboot.

IF you can accept the concept of a reboot in general, then it's far easier to look at Nimoy's presence as little more than a marketing ploy, and treat everythign else as brand new continuity from her on out. Much like Judi Dench's appearance in Casino Royale, the new Bond films have no continuity with the old ones. None. Whatsoever. She's there, yes, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Just a familiar face to perhaps make the transition a little less jarring. Same thing with Nimoy in this new Trek film. He's just a familiar face to ease the transition into AN ENTIRELY NEW CONTINUITY.


Now, all that aside, if you STILL think the design looks fugly, I can't say I disagree with you too much. It certainly looks less oriented around function and far more oriented around style. To me it's like this. Imagine the era of wooden ships. Sure, they had some aspects that were PURELY for style or looks (IE: the ship's figurehead), but mostly the beauty of the ship's design came in how elegantly you could do something for functional purposes. You sure as hell weren't going to NOT do the functional thing, but if you could do so elegantly, you would. That's where this ship seems to lose it. It's TOO "pretty" (perhaps "stylistic" is a better word) with no real reason behind the styling except "Uh....it looks cool." Yes, it may look cool, but it also seems to contradict function. If they can explain it away, then fine, it's just a question of aesthetics then. But I think they could've paid more attention to function over form, or at least tried to blend the two better.

Outside of that, like I said, treat the whole thing as a 100% reboot and it may make it easier to handle.
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

For what it's worth, Ryan Church put a post over on Trek Movie about the new design, in regards t some of the comments about it:

Ryan Church said:
1476. Ryan Church - November 12, 2008
I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, more so because of the amazing childishness the replies to his comment have garnered over there. Well, and I like his work. ;)
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

On reflection I realize that what I'm really not digging is the warp engine nacelles and support struts. Too big, too "jet engine-y", and the supports are hideous.

The rest though... is pretty nice. Mostly straight off off the TMP Enterprise, but distorted.

The larger-diameter deflector dish is actually present in the two TOS pilot episodes. The diameter was later reduced.

This is basically how I'm feeling. I can easily accept all of it except the nacelles and struts. The struts also appear to attach too far forward on the nacelles for my taste.

I'm not totally crazy about it so far, but I don't hate it. I'd like to see it from a few more angles, see it in motion, before passing judgement. I'm still very jazzed to see the movie though.

Jim
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Being a big Ryan Church fan, I like the ship even more! I can't wait to see the concept art and final version. I hope there's a concept art book!

FB
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

"Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed."

So, if there's a dimmed Bussard in your nacelle, don't be alarmed now? ;)
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

The Ryan Church quote seems to imply that the nacelles move or change or something....
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

I'm not fond of the nacelles, why change them if you leave the saucer section the same? You cannot mix the old with the new. The nacelles look like jet intakes...I like the treatment of the lower hull but it looks almost like they started to modify the original design and stopped when they got to the saucer section.
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Nice to see Paramount is keeping up the fine tradition of trying to destroy the franchise. Seems to be only continuity they follow.

This movie will definitely be a bottom queue Netflix movie or HBO/Starz viewing...
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Yes nacelle struts...don't know my terminology...part of the grace and elegance of the original design is that gentle swept profile of the struts....making them dead vertical detracts from how the eye is directed down the hull to the rear of the ship...the design doesn't flow as much and if it doesn't flow the impression of how it speeds through space is lost...
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Funny. The same people that complain about hating everything that is about this new Trek are the same people who will still buy any and all props and or costumes related to it.

The original series NEEDS this reboot-kick-in-the-ass.

I hope to see many more movies with this new crew and look that it has to it. It all looks awesome. And yes, I am a Star Trek fan so kiss my tribbles.
 
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Took 15 minutes to restore a little dignity to the old girl...

enterprise.jpg

Excellent job! Much better!
 
Back
Top