The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Which Enterprise? EdenFX or JJ Abrams
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Which Enterprise?
EdenFX 59 36.42%
JJ Abrams 103 63.58%
Voters: 162. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 11-27-2008, 02:40 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriggerMan View Post
[/b][/i]
Hmm, so even then the original model wasn't going to work on the small screen several years later either!
The justification for the redesign was that the Enterprise had been refit for a new series of five year missions, having already had at least two under Pike and at least two under Kirk. Since the Enterprise was refit between Pike's command and Kirk's, that established a rough time between refits of 10 years, which meant that 10 years after Kirk took command it was due for another refit. Perfectly viable in-universe explanation.

On the other hand, Church's redesign takes place in off-schedule, to say nothing of the fact that it kypes elements from future refits. Not plausibly explainable within the story.

Quote:
How do you know? Not for you to say really. We can play your game and say there is no justification for any ship to not be an exact duplication of the Enterprise for every other series.
That's just ridiculous. Different ship leaves the door wide open for a different design. The Enterprise is... wait for it... not supposed to be different from the Enterprise. Wow. I can't believe someone just made me explain something that mind-numbingly obvious. You win a cookie.

Quote:
By this logic, this could go for any ship designer.
Um... no. It couldn't. It didn't go for Jeffries, who designed the original in all three major refits. It didn't go for Probert, who did nearly nothing to Jeffries first major refit for TMP and later served as the original designer of the Enterprise-D. Why? Because they were doing NEW designs for NEW stages of the ships' lifespans.

Church is redesigning the ship for a time-frame where there was already a design in place. No reason why except, again, he felt like it and somebody felt like paying him to do it.

Defend the redesign all you want, but the more excuses you put up for it, the more excuses I'll shoot down and the more obvious it will be that there isn't any excuse that holds water. I'd suggest you stop while you're behind.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-27-2008, 03:30 PM
vuedoc's Avatar
vuedoc vuedoc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,931
Default

[quote=pastor.dude;122708]Dude, you are missing the point completely. The Enterprise was RE-FIT!!! It was redesigned. Even back in the 70's when TMP or Phase II or whatever was going to be done happened, they realized that the old version of the Enterprise wasn't good enough.

quote]


They redesigned the ship because time had passed since TOS. Now, they are supposed to be going backward in the timeline when things were supposed to look older, not newer. I think that's the POV Saint is coming from, and I think it's a good POV.
__________________
"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
  #113  
Old 11-27-2008, 09:24 PM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

There are two main points to consider:
1: Visual requirements of an audience in 2009 versus 1966
2: Continuity with past storylines / designs

With all respect tp the Eden FX design but it really isn't in the same league in terms of the execution. I believe this will become obvious to most people when they look at the Enterprise in motion on the big screen.
The 1966 Enterprise is an iconic basic shape. The problem with it today is that the component shapes look quite crude One example is the simple tubes for the nacelles which look miniature, non functional and implausible. The Andrew Probert design for the Motion Picture Enterprise was wonderful. It did however make significant changes to the design and I'm puzzled why some of the diehard canonites seem to forgive this. Probert injected extra sophistication into every aspect of the shape (and his nacelles are certainly not the crude cylinders any more). Ryan Church's design draws quite heavily from the Motion Picture design and has attempted to preserve continuity with what's gone before.

The important point here is that continuity and canon are not the only issues to consider, there are box office and cinematic considerations too. The special effects team on the original series made the best job they could with technology available at the time as must ILM working on the new film. Audiences demand nothing less than perfection. I'm sure the original FX guys would be blown away by the new work. Thanks for reading.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-27-2008, 09:33 PM
radoskal's Avatar
radoskal radoskal is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 952
Default

I think you will find that there was a lot of controversy about the redesign before and upon the release of ST: TMP but most "canonizes" today accept the design primarily because it was incorporated into the story line of Star Trek as "The Constitution Class Refit Project."
__________________
Mom, how many times do I have to tell you, Track is what athletes run on. Trek is what the Enterprise goes on.

-Free Enterprise
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-27-2008, 09:49 PM
AJBlue98's Avatar
AJBlue98 AJBlue98 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
I think you will find that there was a lot of controversy about the redesign before and upon the release of ST: TMP but most "canonizes" today accept the design primarily because it was incorporated into the story line of Star Trek as "The Constitution Class Refit Project."
True, which brings up an interesting story point.

Since we know that the Enterprise is being constructed at some point during the film, then we know Capt. April fits into the timeline of the movie somehow. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be seen or mentioned, but Canon tells us that he’s there.

What Canon doesn’t tell us is the specifics of when, how, and why Christopher Pike took command. That’s important because there is therefore nothing to preclude a refit during Pike’s command of Enterprise from the Ryan Church design to the first Matt Jeffries design.

Also, aside from the “origin story” comments regarding the new movie being “how these characters came together,” there’s nothing that specifically puts Kirk in permanent command of the Enterprise at the end of the film. All we know for certain is that this is how these people came to know one another, and that leaves room for them to split apart and reunite later when Kirk’s five year mission begins.

For these reasons, I would be un-surprised to see such a refit take place at the end of the movie or sometime during Star Trek XII.

Last edited by AJBlue98 : 11-27-2008 at 10:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-27-2008, 10:08 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
The Andrew Probert design for the Motion Picture Enterprise was wonderful.
Once again, because it seems people are either not paying attention or willfully ignoring this point: The TMP redesign was maybe 5% Probert's work. The majority of the redesign was done by Jeffries, the Enterprise's original designer, for Star Trek: Phase II.

Quote:
It did however make significant changes to the design and I'm puzzled why some of the diehard canonites seem to forgive this.
Once again, since people seem to ignore this point as well...

Design evolves as time moves forward. TOS to TMP = forward. TOS to pre-TOS = BACKWARD. You don't go BACKWARD IN TIME and FORWARD IN DESIGN EVOLUTION at the same time.

How many more times will these very, very BASIC concepts have to be pointed out?

Quote:
Probert injected extra sophistication into every aspect of the shape (and his nacelles are certainly not the crude cylinders any more).
The only part of the design Probert made changes to was the deflector dish, the front "caps" on the nacelles and the "sensor suite" on the underside of the saucer. That is all Probert had to do with the Enterprise as seen in TMP.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-27-2008, 10:14 PM
TAReber TAReber is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28
Default

The JJ abrams looks hi tech, but also looks to be built more aerodynamic, which really is kinda pointless in outer space. At least the Borg understood how space works.

The EdenFX looks plain, simple, and right to the point.

I vote for the original Ship.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 11-27-2008, 11:41 PM
Section 31 Section 31 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 63
Default

Look at how beautiful the original Enterprise looks in this shot. No extreme radical changes. Just natural lighting and a more realistic skin and texture. It looks like a real photograph.

Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 11-28-2008, 12:10 AM
TriggerMan TriggerMan is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
The justification for the redesign was that the Enterprise had been refit for a new series of five year missions, having already had at least two under Pike and at least two under Kirk. Since the Enterprise was refit between Pike's command and Kirk's, that established a rough time between refits of 10 years, which meant that 10 years after Kirk took command it was due for another refit. Perfectly viable in-universe explanation.
Still doesn't change that it wasn't going to work on TV or the big screen though.

Quote:
On the other hand, Church's redesign takes place in off-schedule, to say nothing of the fact that it kypes elements from future refits. Not plausibly explainable within the story.
In Abramsverse it does.

Quote:
That's just ridiculous. Different ship leaves the door wide open for a different design.
They don't have to have a different design. The original Enterprise is almighty.

Quote:
The Enterprise is... wait for it... not supposed to be different from the Enterprise. Wow. I can't believe someone just made me explain something that mind-numbingly obvious. You win a cookie.
Actually, I didn't make you explain anything, you just had to hear yourself repeat it. It does look like the Enterprise, the new Enterprise that is, just not the old one.

Quote:
Um... no. It couldn't.
Um.. yes. It could.

Quote:
It didn't go for Jeffries, who designed the original in all three major refits. It didn't go for Probert, who did nearly nothing to Jeffries first major refit for TMP and later served as the original designer of the Enterprise-D. Why? Because they were doing NEW designs for NEW stages of the ships' lifespans.
No. Your point was that Ryan Chuch was designing something and got paid for it. They are all designers who were there to do their job and collect their pay check. They designed what they did for the heck of it. No reason why none of it had to look different than the original ship. Jefferies apparently hated the refit for the movies (eat them apples.) None of their redesigns were required either. The original Enterprise is almighty. All Hail Matt Jefferies.

Quote:
Church is redesigning the ship for a time-frame where there was already a design in place.
But you are putting it in the same universe as TOS. Things are different in the movie, some canon facts, other designs, etc. New take on things. Doesn't mean I agree with how the designs were changed. But if you want to use the original ship as is... well it's a good thing you aren't a movie designer is all I can say. We'd have tinfoil UFOs and uniforms at were.

Quote:
No reason why except, again, he felt like it and somebody felt like paying him to do it.
Just as any designer does. They don't do it out of the goodness of their heart.

Quote:
Defend the redesign all you want, but the more excuses you put up for it, the more excuses I'll shoot down and the more obvious it will be that there isn't any excuse that holds water. I'd suggest you stop while you're behind.
That's pretty pathetic. 1.) I haven't defended THIS design if you have paid attention to my posts. 2.) If you don't want to hear opposing sides then you should have said all of this from the beginning (which wouldn't have mattered.) Usually people who feel they have a presentable side won't mind defending it.. you are already getting on offense so that you don't have to do that anymore. Odd. Thanks.

Last edited by TriggerMan : 11-28-2008 at 02:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 11-28-2008, 12:39 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
There are two main points to consider:
1: Visual requirements of an audience in 2009 versus 1966
2: Continuity with past storylines / designs

With all respect tp the Eden FX design but it really isn't in the same league in terms of the execution. I believe this will become obvious to most people when they look at the Enterprise in motion on the big screen.
The 1966 Enterprise is an iconic basic shape. The problem with it today is that the component shapes look quite crude One example is the simple tubes for the nacelles which look miniature, non functional and implausible. The Andrew Probert design for the Motion Picture Enterprise was wonderful. It did however make significant changes to the design and I'm puzzled why some of the diehard canonites seem to forgive this. Probert injected extra sophistication into every aspect of the shape (and his nacelles are certainly not the crude cylinders any more). Ryan Church's design draws quite heavily from the Motion Picture design and has attempted to preserve continuity with what's gone before.

The important point here is that continuity and canon are not the only issues to consider, there are box office and cinematic considerations too. The special effects team on the original series made the best job they could with technology available at the time as must ILM working on the new film. Audiences demand nothing less than perfection. I'm sure the original FX guys would be blown away by the new work. Thanks for reading.
Hey, Welcome to the Movie Forum, and have fun on the boards.

You're right the original design was crude as was the set designs and the uniform. Even if they did have the budget to do what ever they wanted it still would have looked very sixities.

What the original design did was create a very bold and distinguishable design and also balanced... The new ship is what I would call a high Definition kitbash. Impressive but offensive. Only the NX-01 comes close to being this offensive.

I honestly tell you given the budget I could have done a far better design.
This is the ship I continue to design on known as the Engima Class NX-78633



It's my favorite ship persaonlly because of couse I designed him.
But design is always about function not art. I honestly can't tell you with many things what the designer of the new Enterprise was thiniking. I appreaciate the neck being thicker...that was surely needed. He leveled out the bottom of the saucer removing the sweep troughs between the rim and the center. ....

But I have no understanding of what he did to the engines or why he would place the neck so far back.
__________________

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 09:14 PM.


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.