[jtrek79]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

Another fine post which underscores the importance of CONTEXT in any such judgments, a lesson some are still not accounting for in their commentary (though that's their right).

Like, love or hate the new ship design, NONE of us know its full context in the film -- yet we collectively have decades of experience with the TOS Enterprise, the Refit, TNG's E. We've seen them from all angles, in a battle, docked in orbit, circling planets and zipping into warp space.

But we've only seen splinters of the 'reality' of the Abrams' version. There is simply no logical way to effectively compare the three side-by-side (figuratively speaking) with the new ship being at such an information disadvantage. Seeing glimpses of it in motion on a big screen or even our monitors changed many opinions on this ship -- it didn't set them in stone, naturally, but contexts changed many perceptions considerably from that lone, cropped still photo.

Suppositions can be made and conclusions may be jumped to this early, but it's all based on incomplete data, including that all-important context of dramatics which abound for the other ships we know so well, like them better or not.

you re correct mission,but u know us trekkies,we love to gossip everything

[jtrek79]

horatio, visit summer , to some island , happy swimming

[thypentacle]

Everyone keeps sayin it's a bad pic or 'bad angle', but one thing I would like to point out is that the refit version(ST 1-3) looks good from any angle, it has no bad angle IMO... in that way, amung others, it's a superior design to me... unless this new ship pic is somehow a distorted version(why would Paramount allow that blunder?)... or the jutting forward deflector is doing that cause it's about to shoot something and usually isn't out that far... I still don't think it's that great a design.. and I have seen it in the trailer as well, and I noticed how when you think you're about to see a nice side shot of it, the film conveniently blurs or zooms by too fast to see... hmmmm hiding that bad angle I guess. lol

Anyways, if the entire movie never shows this angle I guess all is well... besides, it's just a ship I guess, just wish the design was better as I was looking forward to getting the ship toy. Yes I still like toys, sue me.

[Kukalaka]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

Suppositions can be made and conclusions may be jumped to this early, but it's all based on incomplete data, including that all-important context of dramatics which abound for the other ships we know so well, like them better or not.

I disagree. I believe a two-minute action-packed Fast n' Furious trailer is indicative of the ENTIRE final film.

I am a professional writer and I stick with my convictions, sir.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by radoskal

look here




Now between the three of em, I gotta say. The Original is fine and upstanding, the refit (my fave) is spectacular, and the New one...well, from the picture it does in fact look like nothing to write home about.

The engine Pylons look droopy, the saucer section out of place. Yet, at the same time when I see it zooming around in the trailer, It takes on a totally new life and somehow becomes much more identifiable as a constitution class starship. It's like the motion actually breathes a bit of sparkle and life into the otherwise, saggy model, leading me to believe that we should all take a deep breath, and wait to judge the ship when we can see it, to be blunt, on a really big screen, and for more than a few frames at a time.

No it's just poorly designed.
That's it. I've never seen a bad angle on ships...only bad designs.

Like the NX-01: The ugliest piece of crap, EVER.
And this rivals it in-every-sense-of-the-word, rivals...

This ship isn't beautiful.
It isn't elegant
It's not Trek Worthy.
It's wrong...it's a tease, like they've said. It's parady. All of you know it, but you're willing to love ugly if it gets you another Trek film.

I want a Trek Film.
But this ship is still ugly.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Kukalaka

I disagree. I believe a two-minute action-packed Fast n' Furious trailer is indicative of the ENTIRE final film.

Actually, it's indicative of the theme and pacing of the film.

I am a professional writer and I stick with my convictions, sir.

Are you. Fascinating. Perhaps you'd care to talk shop.

[Big D]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Actually, it's indicative of the theme and pacing of the film.

Did you see the original trailer for The Wrath of Khan? Non-stop exploding ships, consoles, and dudes. Supplemented with Angry Khan voiceovers. It captured the theme and pacing of a handful of the film's scenes, but ignored all the depth and character - the Carol and David subplot, the Genesis device, the confrontation of age, obsolescence, and death. Basically, it was a trailer that said next to nothing about the movie...

[Saquist]

Nice Contrast, D.
Effective demostration was indeed delivered by analogy.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Big D

Did you see the original trailer for The Wrath of Khan? Non-stop exploding ships, consoles, and dudes. Supplemented with Angry Khan voiceovers. It captured the theme and pacing of a handful of the film's scenes, but ignored all the depth and character - the Carol and David subplot, the Genesis device, the confrontation of age, obsolescence, and death. Basically, it was a trailer that said next to nothing about the movie...

But were all of those things, effective as they were, what the story was about? The David and Carol subplot was the root of the Genesis Project and a ruler against which Kirk's aging was measured -- but the Genesis Project only served as the means by which Khan worked toward his goal of revenge against Kirk. Similarly, a parallel of that ruler was applied to Spock with the character of Saavik. While aging, mistakes of youth and the fear of the end of usefulness were the deeper themes of the story, the premise was, "what happens when unfinished business comes back demanding answers?" The trailer captured the story perfectly, even if it did only address the surface version of that premise.

[Big D]

True - but still, the trailer was little more than explosions, eye candy and Moby Dick rants. If one were to evaluate the movie based on that alone, it'd paint an altogether less compelling picture.