The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Hope for those with none. (Re: New E)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-13-2008, 02:07 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshirt Bob View Post
Even though I'm very disappointed in the direction the film has taken, I'm still going to see it opening day. It's still Star Trek, and it's probably going to be good. I just wish JJ and co. would drop the pretense that this movie is part of established canon. Just say it's "Star Trek Begins" and we'll all be happy.
How can you be disappointed in the direction of a film when you haven't even seen a trailer yet?
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-13-2008, 07:40 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

The Batmobile Analogy doesnt work for me. I loved the mobile from Tim Burtons Batman for being a dark and sleek muscle car with elements of a tank, a hybrid with a remarcably consequent line, a clear concept from front to tail. All elements where sleek and athletic.

But I also loved the new Batmobile immediatly for the very same reasons: a consequent concept, a clear line, this time the concept of a tank mixed with elements of a stealth bomber. A hybrid, but all elements where rough and sharp edged.

The old Enterprise was lovely too and again for the very same reasons. From front to tail its design was consequent. All elements worked together, everything seemed to make sense. It had a clear line.

J.J.'s ship is not consequent. Everything seems distorted, slightly out of proportion. The saucer has a different surface structure then the neck, and both has a different surface then the rest of the ship. The nacelles are huge, wich is a big plus for me. Size implies power. But at the same time they are formed and structured like parts of a toy, sleek and brilliant. The original bussard collectors had much more detail then the new ones. Details make things appear bigger on a modell. So, the new bussard collectors are made bigger while having lesser details. Why?

I could go on like this. There are just so many details about this ship that are contradicting eachother. The concept is inconsequent.

Take the saucer section. The original had a different form and these three rings. The designer smothened the form of his new design, made the saucer simpler and its surface rougher. At the same time with simplifying the the saucer he made the area around the deflector dish more unsmooth, complicated and detailed then the original. Why? Smooth, unsmooth, more details, less details, as if the designer was not understanding what he intended with his ship.

A simplifyed and rough saucer, a complex and detailed deflector, huge but smooth, simple and brilliant nacelles.

No clear concept - bad design.

However, again, I can understand what people could like about the new ship: It is new. And its fantastic CGI.

But I tell you: The original Enterprise with its clear concept animated with the same quality CGI would clearly beat this thing in terms of consequence, at least in my eyes.

I know, everything is subjective.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-13-2008, 07:47 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

It's one freaking picture!

Holy crap Edna, some of you people have the franchise dead and buried based on a single picture that may or may not show the proportions accurately. At least wait for the trailer before you call time of death!
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-13-2008, 08:22 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omikse View Post
Hold your tongue on that one. I bet there is a star trek religion out there. I will stack my account on it. If someone can prove to me that there isn't I will delete this account and leave forever.
Actually there is an organized religion based of the Klingon culture. There are rituals and rites performed and taught yearly at the Pantheo-con in San Jose California. All performers ar in full Klingon regalia. It is wonderful to watch!

Last edited by CAPTAIN MOUSE : 11-13-2008 at 08:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-13-2008, 08:27 AM
T'Aerwynd's Avatar
T'Aerwynd T'Aerwynd is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 40 Eridani A
Posts: 347
Default

I have been holding off on replying to this thread because I don't understand the title ... Hope for those with none (Re: New E) ... who has no hope and why? Only one picture of the Enterprise has been released, that I can tell. Why is there no hope? Why is the future of this entire movie -- whose trailer isn't even out yet -- being staked on a few pictures, a few clip descriptions and a couple of trailer descriptions? I don't understand.
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-13-2008, 10:23 AM
vuedoc's Avatar
vuedoc vuedoc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
First of all, I'm much calmer than I was yesterday. Star Trek Is different from Batman, it isn't literary based, it's media based. TOS, STNG, DS9, Voyager, the films, and to some degree, Enterprise are it's history. We've gone from point A with TOS to point B with Enterprise and the STNG films, without changing any major historical events or any ship designs of the past. This new film is throwing all of that continuity away by changing the design of the Enterprise NCC-1701, radically away from what has already been well established, that it is supposed to look like. I.E.: A Constitution class ship is no longer canon, continuity has ended. A new continuity has been created, and everything we know about what occured during the original five year mission, and what happened in the lives of the TOS characters has been wiped from existance, like the minds of ordinary citizens who see an alien in "Men In Black". That's what bothers me. It bothers me much more than the fact that the new ship design looks like it's made from glued together bathroom fixtures.

Very well and eloquently put.
__________________
"Stop it? I'm counting on it."
"But not because you threaten me. I'll pay you because... it's my pleasure."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-13-2008, 10:32 AM
Chucky D's Avatar
Chucky D Chucky D is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in hiding from the Men in Black
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
If the big E has always had the option to separate the saucer section from the rest of the craft in times of crisis.

One would think that this type of operation could also be used as a means of upgrading the ships engines at any stage, sort a plug and play system.

Theoretically you could simply uncouple the primary hull (saucer section) and whack on a new secondary hull, nacelles (or a complete replacement).
It would be relatively easy then to refit the bridge with any new systems leaving the rest of the saucer alone and be on your way in a few days.

Has anyone any knowledge of this type of scenario been mentioned in any of the series or books?
I haven't heard of this type of scenario, however; I like your line of thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-13-2008, 11:16 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Well in theory the bridge is supposed to be a separate module that plugs into the saucer of a starship, thus in theory making it easier to update command systems. You just unplug one bridge and plug in the new, connect it to the ships systems, and there you have a brand new bridge. Which is also why the same class starships can be seen to have wildy different bridges. So as long as the saucer/hull docks were compatible then that is possible too. And should not violate canon.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-13-2008, 01:35 PM
tetanus4breakfast's Avatar
tetanus4breakfast tetanus4breakfast is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Sadly, people boycott for less than that these days, and some people seemingly will now avoid the film. At the end of the day that's their right, but at this point, until perhaps more new info is released, those who wish to boycott will not be persuaded otherwise.
I'm starting to realise this. Yes, it is very sad.
__________________
Brutal.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-13-2008, 01:43 PM
tetanus4breakfast's Avatar
tetanus4breakfast tetanus4breakfast is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T'Aerwynd View Post
I have been holding off on replying to this thread because I don't understand the title ... Hope for those with none (Re: New E) ... who has no hope and why? Only one picture of the Enterprise has been released, that I can tell. Why is there no hope? Why is the future of this entire movie -- whose trailer isn't even out yet -- being staked on a few pictures, a few clip descriptions and a couple of trailer descriptions? I don't understand.
Neither do I. But some have abandoned all hope it would seem.
__________________
Brutal.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.