JJ ABRAMS Enterprise
- Thread starter Jet Beetle
- Start date
Yeah. Remember all the people ranting and raving how great Episode 1 was going to be, because they saw the trailer.
Not to mention the general disdain so many people here have for remakes.
Yet this comes along exhibits endless signs of crapola, yet is heralded as the second coming.
Even as recently as Quantum of Solace. It was going to be SO great. Turned out not so good didn't.
Simple as this, trailer don't always tell the story and frequently are the best parts of the movie with nothing to back it up.
DrMcoy
Sr Member
Okay, I'll chime in...
I'm with Matt Munson.
If you feel the need to express your opinion on ship design, props, sets, costumes, continuity issues, etc. etc., have at it. If you feel the need to state that you refuse to see the movie based on these issues, that's fine by me. But to keep bantering back and forth about these same issues seems rather frivolous.
So what can one do after expressing their opinions?
Sit back. Relax. And either see the movie or don't. But it is rather apparent that those that don't want to see it based on whatever existing material about the movie has been released to date, won't, and those that are intrigued by it, will -- the only thing gained by this continuous back and forth can only serve one purpose, I guess, and that's to understand more fully WHY one is going to see it or not.
In the end, all this discussion amounts to one thing -- the movie will come out. It will be a 2-hour experience, and then it will be over. It will be what it will be. And for those that decide to go see it will either like it or not -- and discussions will ensue.
Would I like to see more TV shows/films about the original crew wearing the exact same shirts walking the exact same corridors on the exact same ship from the original TV series? Sure -- would make for an interesting CGI mini-series a la Final Fantasty movie techniques -- and maybe they'll do this one day. Or not.
But from what I've seen, despite my initial disappointment that it isn't the same ship, same phasers,. etc etc, I am looking forward to what JJ Abrahms does with the characters and, quite frankly, am looking forward to what the new ships/sets/props will look like as well.
To those who have decided already NOT to see it, so it goes. If it turns out that the new movie is well done and has a great story, perhaps you'll change your mind.
If not, then maybe they'll do the CGI thing and make a mini-series styled exactly on original series look/feel/characters and storytelling approach, and we can all like that.
Peace. Live Long & Prosper.
t
I'm with Matt Munson.
If you feel the need to express your opinion on ship design, props, sets, costumes, continuity issues, etc. etc., have at it. If you feel the need to state that you refuse to see the movie based on these issues, that's fine by me. But to keep bantering back and forth about these same issues seems rather frivolous.
So what can one do after expressing their opinions?
Sit back. Relax. And either see the movie or don't. But it is rather apparent that those that don't want to see it based on whatever existing material about the movie has been released to date, won't, and those that are intrigued by it, will -- the only thing gained by this continuous back and forth can only serve one purpose, I guess, and that's to understand more fully WHY one is going to see it or not.
In the end, all this discussion amounts to one thing -- the movie will come out. It will be a 2-hour experience, and then it will be over. It will be what it will be. And for those that decide to go see it will either like it or not -- and discussions will ensue.
Would I like to see more TV shows/films about the original crew wearing the exact same shirts walking the exact same corridors on the exact same ship from the original TV series? Sure -- would make for an interesting CGI mini-series a la Final Fantasty movie techniques -- and maybe they'll do this one day. Or not.
But from what I've seen, despite my initial disappointment that it isn't the same ship, same phasers,. etc etc, I am looking forward to what JJ Abrahms does with the characters and, quite frankly, am looking forward to what the new ships/sets/props will look like as well.
To those who have decided already NOT to see it, so it goes. If it turns out that the new movie is well done and has a great story, perhaps you'll change your mind.
If not, then maybe they'll do the CGI thing and make a mini-series styled exactly on original series look/feel/characters and storytelling approach, and we can all like that.
Peace. Live Long & Prosper.
t
franz bolo
Sr Member
Quantum of Solace and SW EPisode 1-3 were all good and watchable. If you want to find the perfect example of what not to do, then go see Thunderbirds with Bill Paxton.
Now that is the worst reboot EVER!!!!!!!!!!!
FB
Now that is the worst reboot EVER!!!!!!!!!!!
FB
Last edited by a moderator:
Truer words were never spoken (or typed).
Last edited by a moderator:
friv⋅o⋅lous [friv-uh-luhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.
This whole board is frivolous. especially if you read definition 4 and compare lightsabers to the cure for cancer. I love frivality (probably not a word).
My biggest grip is that movie standards have slipped so damn low and now Trek is the latest used car battery to get a paint job and put in the "NEW" window. The only parts of the trailer that spark any kind of response are shreds of TOS untouched, the alert, the names, the ears -- this trailer reminds me so much of Superman Returns (also called a reboot) - where people cheered at Brando's voice over and the Williams score being used again - and mark my words, that is what this film is going to be. A coattails movie, riding on the back of the greater thing that came before it but unable to deliver. Same as Episodes 1-3, Sean Lennon and John F Kennedy jr
Wake me up when you get back to discussing the Enterprise. :sleep
spcglider@aol.com
Sr Member
Wake up, Phase Pistol!
I want to know why the engine struts are upside down compared to the NCC-1701-A.
Any hypothesis? (Can't be a theory... theories need to be vetted by testing and peer review).
-Gordon
So they can sell a new model kit. And some egocentric designer can say he re-designed the Enterprise.
KnightAsylum
Sr Member
Because someone realized that the looked upside down on the A and fixed the problem.
spcglider@aol.com
Sr Member
Oops. Should have been more specific.
Why would Starfleet designers, in continuity, decide the engine struts were needing to be turned upside down when it got to the refit?
No real-world answers, please. Just fantasy.
Thanks!
-Gordon
Goodwolf
Sr Member
George Lucas already did the SE releases.
And word round the campfire is he still wouldn't mind tweaking with them.
Sixxgunn13
Sr Member
All the whining about the "small" details", I think is dumb.
this movie is catering to the masses that watched ST and to a new audience... and NOT to hardcore trekkies.
I'm a SW guy... but I did grow up watching TOS, for me it would be cool to see a TOS accurate bridge.
But my wife keeps me grounded to reality...and if she was to see a blockbuster movie like this one is slated to be:rolleyes, Sporting 60's-70's Enterpise sets, she would think how ghetto, a painted plywood set with flashing lights... woo hoo.
and I think most non-geeky movie goers would think the same.
Sorry to all the hardcore trekkies keep on :cry
Hollywood killed the look of Transformers but I still enjoyed the movie.
You should all do the same for this as well, buy a ticket and enjoy.:thumbsup
this movie is catering to the masses that watched ST and to a new audience... and NOT to hardcore trekkies.
I'm a SW guy... but I did grow up watching TOS, for me it would be cool to see a TOS accurate bridge.
But my wife keeps me grounded to reality...and if she was to see a blockbuster movie like this one is slated to be:rolleyes, Sporting 60's-70's Enterpise sets, she would think how ghetto, a painted plywood set with flashing lights... woo hoo.
and I think most non-geeky movie goers would think the same.
Sorry to all the hardcore trekkies keep on :cry
Hollywood killed the look of Transformers but I still enjoyed the movie.
You should all do the same for this as well, buy a ticket and enjoy.:thumbsup
spcglider@aol.com
Sr Member
Last edited by a moderator:
To tell the truth guys,
I'm with the crowd that HATES this new design.
The fact that it's designed by John "frickin' ugly Enterprise-E" Eaves isn't surprising. He designed two of the least-liked Enterprise (E-E and NX-01) and it feels like the whole design scheme for the movie was cribbed badly from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Personal opinion -- I DO think Classic Trek needed a design revamp for the cinema and that the 60's sets just wouldn't cut it. Exterior-wise, the original Enterprise still works today and I have seen many great fan CGI-recreations of the Ship plus painting that incorporate the TMP-era aztec paint scheme onto its scheme. Heck, even remastered Star Trek incorporates aztec features onto the hull now! Other than some problems I have with the nacelle pylons (they look too weak and awkward to support those engines), the "Christmas tree" lights on the model, and generally poor lighting conditions on the TOS FX set, it's still a classic design. Proportionally, the Enterprise WAS made better with the lengthening of the diameter of the saucer in the Phase II/STMP revamps. And 80% of that work was still Matt Jefferies!
Frankly, a Phase II redesign with more detail on the surface and the original "spinning hub" nacelles mounted on rearward swept pylons like the TMP model would have looked better than this latest redesign monstrosity. The problem was never the saucer (other than diameter and proportionate length to the rest of the ship) with me, but an engineering section that's just too straight and needed gentle sweeping curves like the TMP version. Heck, I would have kept the sensor dish, too, and just made it glow blue when active and stay copper/amber like the original version when NOT active.
Had it been me, I would have saved Paramount a hell of a lot of time in research and just gone back to the Phase II development artwork and sorta crossed over that stuff with some of what was done for the Star Trek I.
I agree the shark was jumped design-continuity-wise with this film but it should be apparent by now that the move is NOT set in Star Trek's past but rather is a REBOOT as much as some of us hate to hear that. Classic Galactica fans, we hear you and sympathize with you!
I'm with the crowd that HATES this new design.
The fact that it's designed by John "frickin' ugly Enterprise-E" Eaves isn't surprising. He designed two of the least-liked Enterprise (E-E and NX-01) and it feels like the whole design scheme for the movie was cribbed badly from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Personal opinion -- I DO think Classic Trek needed a design revamp for the cinema and that the 60's sets just wouldn't cut it. Exterior-wise, the original Enterprise still works today and I have seen many great fan CGI-recreations of the Ship plus painting that incorporate the TMP-era aztec paint scheme onto its scheme. Heck, even remastered Star Trek incorporates aztec features onto the hull now! Other than some problems I have with the nacelle pylons (they look too weak and awkward to support those engines), the "Christmas tree" lights on the model, and generally poor lighting conditions on the TOS FX set, it's still a classic design. Proportionally, the Enterprise WAS made better with the lengthening of the diameter of the saucer in the Phase II/STMP revamps. And 80% of that work was still Matt Jefferies!
Frankly, a Phase II redesign with more detail on the surface and the original "spinning hub" nacelles mounted on rearward swept pylons like the TMP model would have looked better than this latest redesign monstrosity. The problem was never the saucer (other than diameter and proportionate length to the rest of the ship) with me, but an engineering section that's just too straight and needed gentle sweeping curves like the TMP version. Heck, I would have kept the sensor dish, too, and just made it glow blue when active and stay copper/amber like the original version when NOT active.
Had it been me, I would have saved Paramount a hell of a lot of time in research and just gone back to the Phase II development artwork and sorta crossed over that stuff with some of what was done for the Star Trek I.
I agree the shark was jumped design-continuity-wise with this film but it should be apparent by now that the move is NOT set in Star Trek's past but rather is a REBOOT as much as some of us hate to hear that. Classic Galactica fans, we hear you and sympathize with you!
Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise
Best post in the entire thread! LOL
I love that!Its not spelled wrong...in the new reimagined universe thats how it is SUPPOSED to look.
Best post in the entire thread! LOL
DrMcoy
Sr Member
