The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > A Thought - New Enterprise in a Remastered ST:TOS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:51 AM
Star Trek's Avatar
Star Trek Star Trek is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South FL.
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
I beg to differ. The design of the E has everything to do with the story. Without the ship, there would be no story. And "MINOR" differences?!?! And if you look at the construction scene in the trailer, you won't see any differences? Did you see the same trailer I did? Because I noticed a lot of differences. Pardon me Horatio, you have always been the calm voice of reason and logic on these boards, and I admire you for that, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. The differences between the "Abramsprise" and the real NCC-1701 from TOS are radical, not minor. Anyone who has watched TOS knows this. Most are just too stubborn to admit it. And it would take more than just a line of dialogue in the movie to explain such a radical departure from the traditional Connie design.
uh...

Real NCC-1701... ?????

'nuff said.
__________________
I'm ba-aack...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:51 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
So what are you expecting at this point in the lead up to the release? A total redo of the effects? A total script (that no-one here has seen) re-write?

It has nothing to do with stubborness and everything to do with the fact that these decisions are above our heads, have been made by the people making the film and are past changing.

Now these discussions can (and will) go round and round as many times as anyone likes, but it's all moot anyway.
That's true. But I'm doing my impression of a Tellarite. You know how they love to argue. I know there's nothing that can be done about it now, and I really do hope that this is a good movie. And maybe the changes will be explained. If not, this movie will not fit into the established Star Trek universe without time travel alterations to the timeline. I'm expecting something along the lines of "Yesterday's Enterprise". Just a thought.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-04-2008, 07:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

And as likely as any other, but several people are posting as if they have the entire film figured out, (though with the options open via a time travel based plot I have no idea how) and I'm simply advocating patience to give the film the chance to address these matters without assuming first.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:01 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 Star Trek View Post
uh...

Real NCC-1701... ?????

'nuff said.
YEP! THE REAL NCC-1701.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:11 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
YEP! THE REAL NCC-1701.


(Looks a little unbalanced...)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:18 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
I beg to differ. The design of the E has everything to do with the story. Without the ship, there would be no story. And "MINOR" differences?!?! And if you look at the construction scene in the trailer, you won't see any differences? Did you see the same trailer I did? Because I noticed a lot of differences. Pardon me Horatio, you have always been the calm voice of reason and logic on these boards, and I admire you for that, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. The differences between the "Abramsprise" and the real NCC-1701 from TOS are radical, not minor. Anyone who has watched TOS knows this. Most are just too stubborn to admit it. And it would take more than just a line of dialogue in the movie to explain such a radical departure from the traditional Connie design.
I understand your point of view and it is a matter of perspective whether those changes are minor or major ones. As the trailer features a scene with a front shot, I only wanted to point out that she looks more similar to the original than from a sideview.
But if I may suggest, my wild speculation is that we see the Enterprise constructed on Earth, Kirk yearning to get command over that ship (OK not so wild, that is just the trailer scene), we see her first launch and, although in TOS many Constitution class vessels existed, the Enterprise might be the first and single ship of her class in this movie. There COULD be scenes which emphasize the Enterprise, like the slow revelation in TMP. As I said, I understand your point of view, but perhaps good plot concerning the Enterprise can make it up for a bad look (just like a good performance of an actor is more important than his looks) ?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:18 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 LTJG Iferal View Post


(Looks a little unbalanced...)
Just a little. But it gets the job done, don't it?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:21 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 LTJG Iferal View Post


(Looks a little unbalanced...)
Possibly one of the reasons the shuttle is called "The flying brick."

But nice shot of OV 101
__________________
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
  #29  
Old 12-04-2008, 09:38 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Just a little. But it gets the job done, don't it?
Eeeeeexactly.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-04-2008, 09:39 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
Possibly one of the reasons the shuttle is called "The flying brick."

But nice shot of OV 101
Indeed...finding it was a real treat. How often, even in the early days, did we get to see 101 on the pad?
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 11:59 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.