The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:46 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yes, that is indeed very well done, and would suit the remastered series fine, but it would still need greater photo-realism for a 2009 big screen theatrical release. Just like the photographic model from TMP had.
And that could have easily been done given the budget for the new movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Deg'S ship is great work, but new textures were necessary in '79 for the big screen, just as they are now. And tiny details like the arboretum are important to make the ship look interesting in long shots:

Again, it could easily be done for the new movie. But deg's ship is absolutely awesome. The detailing is fantastic!
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:48 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Well, clearly Abrams and Paramount made a decision to go another way. And since Paramount and Abrams' company are footing the bill you mention, they can pretty much do that.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:52 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
And that could have easily been done given the budget for the new movie.



Again, it could easily be done for the new movie. But deg's ship is absolutely awesome. The detailing is fantastic!
It is lovely and well done like many other CGI versions of the original Enterprise, but I don't see any details that would make her look interesting in long shots.
The alternative would have been ... well quick shots with quick fly-bys of her like in the TOS intro ... which would have ended in Star Trek: The Farce or TOS : Reloaded, but you don't produce such stuff for the big screen with a budget of 150 milion bucks.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:57 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
I don't think anyone expected the "refit" to be picked apart millimeter by millimeter. It's a movie, for crying out loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Respectfully, I have to disagree with that. It was always going to be picked through to the tiniest detail possible so that faults and flaws could be found. Even if the Enterprise was literally not one bit different there would still have been something someone found to use to bash Abrams over the head with.
Yeah, if you could go ahead and read my post in context that'd be great.

I was talking about TMP, the "refit." Suppose I should have said. When they redesigned the ship I'm pretty sure no one was thinking "we can't do this, the fans will measure it on the screen and see that it's not the same size."
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:09 AM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Question... How would fans have reacted in 1979 if they hadn't added the notion that the ship had been rebuilt and they just tossed out the new version without a word?

Lots of fans would have said it was nice but not the Enterprise. But Roddenberry (Yes the man who said "A policeman doesn't draw his gun and explain the principle of how it works he just draws it.") and company understood this. Really...

"We've just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise!"

That took how much to put in and took away WHAT from the story?

And again the other example from ST:TMP is the redesign of the Klingons. THERE we just got: "Oh that's how they always looked we just never had the money to show them properly before."

THAT spawned almost a cottage industry of people scrambling for their own explanations until we got the DS9 explanation. "Well yes... there is a story... We just don't talk about it." And then the Enterprise version which took two episodes to explain.

Now most people I know bought the DS9 version easier than Enterprise. Why? I mean the Enterprise explanation is a very in depth one... perhaps too in depth.

The lesson is that it does not take much too satisfy us relics. We're just asking six seconds to have something to hang our hat on.

To those who want to tell me to just like it or lump it I ask if giving us six seconds is so bad? Will that kill this movie?

Or is it that since we're old dogs we just don't merit it in certain eyes?
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:10 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on that. Taking your point of view for a moment, though -- if Nemesis was geared toward people who knew TNG, I can only conclude it was written by people who, from start to finish, didn't.
The problem with Nemesis was that it was written by a supposed fan. John Logan claims to be a big-time Star Trek fan, and yet, there are certain things he did not get right.

Probably the biggest being : How did the Ent E go from 24 decks low in First Contact, to 29 in Nemesis.

There are other technical things I could go into, but I'm too tired.

Thing is, when you get a fan to write for a show they love, there's going to be some "fanboyishness" in the story, no matter how hard they try to restrain themselves. And when that happens, then you may end up incensing another group of fans of that franchise, because they don't see it the same way the fan/writer does.

Heck, I'm sure that even in my Battlestar Galactica continuation fanfics, there's probably some level of fanboyishness somewhere in there, even if I don't realize it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:16 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagami Crewman View Post
Question... How would fans have reacted in 1979 if they hadn't added the notion that the ship had been rebuilt and they just tossed out the new version without a word?

Lots of fans would have said it was nice but not the Enterprise. But Roddenberry (Yes the man who said "A policeman doesn't draw his gun and explain the principle of how it works he just draws it.") and company understood this. Really...

"We've just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise!"

That took how much to put in and took away WHAT from the story?

And again the other example from ST:TMP is the redesign of the Klingons. THERE we just got: "Oh that's how they always looked we just never had the money to show them properly before."

THAT spawned almost a cottage industry of people scrambling for their own explanations until we got the DS9 explanation. "Well yes... there is a story... We just don't talk about it." And then the Enterprise version which took two episodes to explain.

Now most people I know bought the DS9 version easier than Enterprise. Why? I mean the Enterprise explanation is a very in depth one... perhaps too in depth.

The lesson is that it does not take much too satisfy us relics. We're just asking six seconds to have something to hang our hat on.

To those who want to tell me to just like it or lump it I ask if giving us six seconds is so bad? Will that kill this movie?

Or is it that since we're old dogs we just don't merit it in certain eyes?
If I get you right, you would appreciate an in-universe explanation for why the Enterprise looks different. Who knows if there is none, we have not seen the movie yet. But as you pointed out with the Klingons, the same folks who want everything to be superconsistent dislike an effort to create continuity like Affliction / Divergence did.
So I think some people are just nearly impossible to please, that's perhaps why anyone who does entertainment stuff in a long-livig franchise don't tries to to please those who are so hard to please and just tells the STORY they like.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:23 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagami Crewman View Post
The lesson is that it does not take much too satisfy us relics. We're just asking six seconds to have something to hang our hat on.

To those who want to tell me to just like it or lump it I ask if giving us six seconds is so bad? Will that kill this movie?

Or is it that since we're old dogs we just don't merit it in certain eyes?
Perhaps we should wait and see; those six seconds might be in there after all. People had to watch the movie to hear Scott say "We just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise", not the trailer.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:44 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolFan2020 View Post
I really hate the CANONITES! First off, there is no STAR TREK CANON! There never has been or ever was any sort of CANON at all! Everything was subjective and let's face it TOS contradicted itself constantly... UESAPA became UFP! Lithium became Dilithium! Etc, etc, etc....



CANON? I think not.... or to play on a line from SPOCK'S BRAIN....

CANON? What is CANON?
I think Saint address your concerns but yes I sort of agree with you. There really has never been canon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagami Crewman View Post
I'm tired...

I guess a lot of you never felt that the Original Star of Star Trek was the USS Enterprise. It was the voyages of the Enterprise and HER crew.

A Sailor will tell you that each ship has a spirit of her own. Likewise an inspired piece of work takes on soul from the artist that creates it and those who admire it.

So unlike whatever Flash Gordon borrowed to fly around in, the Enterprise herself became a character as real as the rest in this piece of fiction. She had moods and strengths and frailties and even mortality.

And when she died it was a sadness.

So yes I want the Star of Star Trek to be treated well and with dignity and respect.

She is a beautiful lady and we love her... perhaps she is but a symbol of something bigger but there are worse symbols out there.


Just foolishness I guess though....
No. I think as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukalaka View Post
Stayed constant like the Enterprise? (please, there is no logical way of explaining the Ent A is the same ship as the TOS one. with that amount of refitting, they would have just built a new sihp)
Actually there is a logical way to explain.
The ships hull is removed. The module sections are seperated and the frame is expanded upon. Because the A is just a little bit bigger it's MORE than possible.

We could argue..."why would you"
but we don't know how tech works in this century. We could say now that it would be easier to start from scratch but thats today. I'd agree...it seems too much todo but it's not impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yep, that's my basic point - understanding it isn't the issue, but some episodes are like watching a live technical manual.
I know...I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
Why did the return path have to be compensated for in the case of Apollo 13? Because a proper approach angle was required for reentry, and the ship did not start its trip back to Earth in the typical way (which would have put it on the proper course from the outset). The LEM in all its not-fully-balanced, asymmetrical glory was just hanging off the end of the CSM all the way from the Earth to the moon at the beginning of the mission without trouble. It didn't require constant MAJOR course corrections because it didn't have to "reenter" the lunar atmosphere at a precise angle, it just had to enter orbit. Like a starship.
Iferal..the only problem here is that you don't seem to understand that on the way to the moon they had power and onboard navigation. Leaving the moon the engines had to be fired manually. The computer was not available to fire the engines and RCS in propper course alignment.

That required a fixed point and compensation.

Quote:
Pray, tell me how JJ's Enterprise is any more "unbalanced" than, say, the 1701-A or -D?
I can't.
I can only tell you that A is balanced with the coils at one end a greater portion of the mass of the actual ship ahead of those denser coils.

I can tell you that Enterprise D's huge set of coils is PERFECTLY balanced with the Over size Saucer and a portion of the stardrive ahead of the ship engines

I can tell you that placing the neck and subsequently the Saucer further back on the stardrive is going to make the ship have a slight imbalance in mass front vs back. It doesn't fall in line with the other ships of similar arrangement. Even the Excelsior has greater ship mass ahead of engine mass.

Take NX and Akira.
The NX's mass is greater...much greater forward...in fact too much vs the engines. The Akira's engines are actually fairly large in comparison to the Primary hull...It's balanced...ugly...but balanced. I give propps for that.

symmetry makes it easier to balance the mass of a ship while applying thrust. I didn't say you couldn't compensate for it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:44 AM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
If I get you right, you would appreciate an in-universe explanation for why the Enterprise looks different. Who knows if there is none, we have not seen the movie yet. But as you pointed out with the Klingons, the same folks who want everything to be superconsistent dislike an effort to create continuity like Affliction / Divergence did.
So I think some people are just nearly impossible to please, that's perhaps why anyone who does entertainment stuff in a long-livig franchise don't tries to to please those who are so hard to please and just tells the STORY they like.
Yes and to clarify... I'm not saying there isn't or reacting to the movie itself but to fans who seem to be saying that we're not important enough to merit that little bit.

I'm not so much a detail hound I'm demanding that the phasers be replaced with the old Six shooter looking hand lasers and I'm certainly not looking for paper print outs on Pike's bridge and note that no one is screaming that "Number One" is missing.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
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 08:59 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.