Star Trek (2009 J.J. Abrams movie) Phaser Defined Thread!

[MooMooEgg]

Maybe the prop guys will listen to all these comments and improve the designs for the props in the next movie (or am I thinking too far ahead? lollol:lol)

But seriously, I'm not totally appalled by what's being shown. Yes, the communicator is a little bland and the tricorder is still up in the air for me (I'll wait to see the actual prop or it in action), but I think the phaser matches the design of the ship/bridge. Of course, that seems to be a bad thing in most people's eyes right now. :lol

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Let's hope that lightning strikes twice.

Case in point.

#1. Wrath of Kahn was the BEST Trek movie ever filmed.

#2. Wrath of Kahn had the WORST props ever used.

So, grab some popcorn and get ready for a great film!

 

[Tiberius Kirk]

Let's hope that lightning strikes twice.

Case in point.

#1. Wrath of Kahn was the BEST Trek movie ever filmed.

#2. Wrath of Kahn had the WORST props ever used.

So, grab some popcorn and get ready for a great film!

I like your thinking!!!!!

 

[phase pistol]

Wrath of Khan is an interesting example. And so is Star Trek 6 ("The Undiscovered Country"). Both were Nicholas Meyer efforts.

Meyer was sort of a "silk purse from sow's ear" guy. Remember, the first Star Trek film had been widely thought of as a disaster... over budget, barely finished in time. Poorly received. Meyer's brief was to take what was left over from the first film, and do something with it.

The problems were solved by getting an action oriented script (the first film was "too cerebral", which had been a problem with Star Trek's original pilot episode as well), dynamic actors and exciting special effects which fit into the reduced budget.

Props and set dressing were one area where Meyer saved money. Many things were simply rented from prop houses, or recycled from the first film with more blinky lights added.

Star Trek 6 was a similar situation... Trek 5, directed by Shatner, did not go terribly well, and Meyer again had the opportunity to take what was there, make it go "big" visually and dynamically, and make a much larger and lusher film without spending a ton of money.

NOW then. Fast forward to Abrams' Star Trek 2009. BIG budget, the biggest budget of any Trek film. Totally new designs, nothing is held over from previous films.

ON the one hand, this is a huge opportunity, so everything OUGHT to be just dandy. No "making do with what came before", so the fact that crappy props were designed for this film, is kind of galling. :lol

Some folks seem to be digging the new stuff though, so maybe I'm just wrong. I like to think I can embrace change and fresh ideas, so thus far I have not said the film sucks completely just because I have reservations about certain elements. But... I'll have to wait and see. There are no guarantees. :unsure

 

[MattMunson]

Another view. Anyone else thinking that the top bit looks like the scope thingy off of a First Conact phaser rifle?

I gotta go with the crowd that is liking this more and more. I think it looks pretty cool.

AND I'm a fan of the new tricorder. Looks pretty cool.

I still think at the end of the day that if you're banking your entire movie going experience on the hand props, then you're betting on the wrong horse. I like the discussion about how the props in II sucked, but that didn't stop it from being a great movie.

I know this has been said before, and I recognize that folks are just having their poke at the franchise, but I REALLY think everyone should wait until the movie comes out to pass judgment on it. I know, I know, that's crazy talk

 

[phase pistol]

How many times do I have to remind folks that this is a prop board. :lol

I think the critique of the props themselves, is perfectly valid. :sleep

Extrapolating from that to saying "the movie sucks" is probably unwarranted. :lol

But then at the end of it all we have this to contend with: "Abrams thinks these props look good, and the Bridge looks good, and the USS Kelvin looks good... so what the hell kind of film will we ultimately get?" :eek

- k

 

[DrMcoy]

I have rarely. if ever, collected a prop replica from a TV show or movie I didn't like.

As a kid, I LOVED Star Trek -- because it was a sci-fi adventure with imaginative stories and characters I liked. BECAUSE I liked the characters and the story, I fell in love with the props that were used, and sought them out.

My point: I fall for story/characters first, THEN desire the props. I don't collect props, no matter hpw cool they are, if I thought the story was lame or the characters uninteresting.

So, no matter what anybody says about the new movie props, its all a moot point to me in many ways -- when movie comes out, and I like it -- or rather if I LOVE it, I'll pick up the prop toys and maybe a hi-end replica or two. If movie stinks, then it doesn't matter anymore.

That said, I am curious how many of our fellow collectors on this forum collect props REGARDLESS of whether the show they are from is considrered good to them. Does the tail wag the dog? If you like props, do you automatically like the show they are from? Or if you hate the show, but like the props, do you still collect the props?

if so, I find this very interesting -- only because I collect many toys/models and props, but there is not a single thing in my collection that is from a show/movieI didn't like -- every collectible I have was purchased or made because I LOVED the show it represents.

 

[phase pistol]

Interesting question Ted. I definitely collect props that intrigue me on a visual level. Which means I collect a prop even from a movie I didn't like, IF the prop is really spectacular.

Conversely, in the case of for example Wrath of Khan, I still have a replica of that damn metal box they used for a communciator. Call me sentimental. :lol

But I try not to be "completist" one way or the other, or collect just for arbitrary reasons such as "I liked this film, therefore I will collect everything FROM this film."

- k

 

[micdavis]

I pick up or make something from a movie that I think is mostly lame, if it's a cool design.

Lost in Space sucks beyond measure for the most part, but the ship, guns, Robot, etc. are cool.

On the flip side, I like most of the incarnations of Trek, but few of the props not from the original have ever interested me. Especially all those goofy tricorders.

 

[Rabittooth]

I think that for me...it's both. A prop has to be both aesthetically appealing and from a cool film for me to want it.
Qui Gon Jinn is my favorite Jedi, but unfortunately has the world's most repugnant lightsaber design ever.
I only collected one to complete my EL lightsaber collection, and ended up selling it relatively soon thereafter because it's fugly (and the movie wasn't the greatest even though the character IS IMO :lol )
The Trek TOS props are beautiful designs and are from an awesome show and I think I'll always have versions of them in my collection.
My 2cents on the New Trek props:
The phaser looks cool design-wise, don't know if I'm gonna be thrilled with the finish if it's all shiny chrome and spinning blue and red light etc. That seems a bit dumb and unnecessary. The tricorder is OK...hope it (the actual prop)doesn't say "TRICORDER" on the front of the thing though as some others have mentioned. What's next? "CHAIR" labels etc? :unsure
I'm glad they kept the flip design of the communicator and I kinda dig the glass ball aspect. Not fond of the black cover though. Something with a metal finish would have been better. I like the ship fine except for the elephantiasis of the nacelles. The bridge is a bit too white and glass for me, as has been noted here...looks like an Apple store.
I'm just glad there's new Trek though and hope it leads to more new Trek. :thumbsup

-Rabittooth

 

[Carson Dyle]

Okay, here’s a shot of the prop from Trek XI that someone posted, briefly, over on Hobbytalk (the link has since been removed).

We’ve seen a lot of phaser designs over the years, and IMO this represents an improvement over many of them.

 

[Tripper]

I KNEW it, they are all silver. Where are the blue/grey accents you speak of?

 

[silverskyes402]

I LOVE IT!!! Im glad there is no actual blue barrel, I guess I can live with the red one, i like the brushed aluum. look to it, other than that the toy version is pretty spot on, just needs a new paint job

 

[MooCriket]

Im glad there is no actual blue barrel, I guess I can live with the red one, i like the brushed aluum. look to it, other than that the toy version is pretty spot on, just needs a new paint job

I agree:thumbsup Thanks for getting that picture and posting it while you still could

 

[IndyFanChuck]

If that is really the movie prop, then I like it. I would not have gone with Silver, but I can really grow to LOVE it I think.

 

[micdavis]

Not all bad.

Where is the trigger?

Swinging barrel is still stupid.

Better be some time travel/alternate universe thing or it doesn't go between the Hand Laser and the Phaser 2. Otherwise, stupid beyond measure.

 

[Rabittooth]

Hey yeah! That finish is pretty cool. Hope they really look a bit weathered like that. I'm also no super thrilled with the red, but hey...it is a nice design.

-Rabittooth

 

[Carson Dyle]

I KNEW it, they are all silver. Where are the blue/grey accents you speak of?

They're staring you right in the face.

The handle has a worn, burnished silver look, but there's a patina of blue-grey over the hood/ body. As additional pix surface the two-toned quality will, I'm sure, become more apparent.

 

[Zodou]

Hmmm Nope, still ugly (IMO) Is the red barrel to let the bad guy know you're shootin' to kill? :lol

 

[micdavis]

No, it's for zero-attention span pin heads that need everything spoon fed to them.

You know, their target audience.

...and of course. It makes a swell toy.