The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > J.J. Abrams and his obsession with TMP
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2009, 11:47 AM
AdmiralClouatre's Avatar
AdmiralClouatre AdmiralClouatre is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Default J.J. Abrams and his obsession with TMP

Well, for post #2, I decided to start my own "examination thread" which MAY or may not have been done ad nauseum, but I decided "Why not?"...

As I sit here staring at the Abramsprise and my model of the TMP 1701, I recall something said by JJ in a recent interview of how he basically fawned over the scale and detail of the TMP Enterprise...which led me to think "Maybe he 'enforced' his own little obsession with this ship to Ryan Church in giving his edict on how the new 1701 should look?" So I did a little bit of investigating and decided to post the many many things he "borrowed" from the TMP 1701, and once my Windows 7 Beta version of Paint works like it's supposed to, I'll post comparison pics (unless someone here would be gracious enough to do so), but in the meantime, I'll give my little itemized list.

1.) Deflector grid surrounding the outer lip of the Saucer Section
2.) The "three lights" underneath the Bridge Module
3.) Window patterns on the outer lip of the new ship
4.) Lower Sensor Dome and the 4 lights/sensors directly above the actual dome itself
5.) Phaser housings (upper and lower saucer)
6.) Photorp Tube housing and design reeks of TMP
7.) Warp pylon panels on inside of both pylons (almost the same blue-grey color as well)
8.) Impulse reactor housing (not the assembly itself, but the discharge assembly)
9.) Placement of the Secondary Hull Docking Ports
10.) Warp transfer conduit panels on either side the dorsal (same as pylon panels)
11.) Blue-ish color of the Deflector dish
12.) Reaction Control Thrusters on the four points of the saucer
13.) The Starfleet pennant on the side of the Engineering Hull, along with the circle behind the Arrowhead (a TMP move right there, coinciding with the new insignia used in TMP)

I am sure there are more things, and I am not sure if this was covered, but his little comment about the TMP 1701 made the warp core in my head churn a little bit and I felt like sharing If there are any things I may have missed (not how the Secondary Hull looks like a lot of it was borrowed from the lines of the Excelsior's secondary hull, with TMP 1701 thrown in for "roundness") PLEASE add to the list...I hope this starts a little bit of conversation and some close scrutiny in angles we haven't covered...yet
__________________
"I may throw up on ya." - Leonard McCoy

Last edited by AdmiralClouatre : 03-09-2009 at 12:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-09-2009, 11:55 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Interesting, though one might as easily make a long list of big differences between the TMP E and Abrams'. If Abrams had an actual agenda for hewing close to the TMP Refit version, I doubt he'd base it on details like "three lights underneath the Bridge Module" since having only two would likely have no impact on the ship's character in the film.

On the other hand, TMP was the oldest big screen model of the Enterprise created, and for lack of a better example, might be the closest film series ship to that which appeared in TOS. Given how many people don't watch TOS, he may have started with the version of the E most moviegoers recognize from the TOS-crew films.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:00 PM
AdmiralClouatre's Avatar
AdmiralClouatre AdmiralClouatre is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Default

I love where you are going in your points, and all of them are totally valid. Where I was going is not that Abrams went Aztec pattern by Aztec pattern to Church, but he may have told Church "Hey, make your ship kinda look like this ship.", if you feel where I am going. Basically I feel, IMHO, Abrams is and was so infatuated with the TMP 1701 (like a lot of us are, even myself), and considering legal concerns with the Viacom people and CBS people (mentioned in an earlier post I read), he leaned towards making it more TMP friendly and less TOS obvious...If I am making any sense
__________________
"I may throw up on ya." - Leonard McCoy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:09 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

I understand what you're saying, but I note a point in your recent comment: Viacom and/or CBS have nothing to say about the TMP Refit design in terms of this film. Paramount still owns the movie franchise rights, and both examples are from feature films. Since both entities are subsidiaries of the same parent company, one is not going to sue the other over ship design similarities.

It's the Enterprise: it's going to have many more basic similarities than minor detail differences -- but it's still all in the same corporate family.

I personally don't see Abrams' obsession with TMP, but I've never looked into it either. But I'd put it this way: his ship can't look more like the TNG Enterprise than the TMP version, so what other choice for comparison would there be (in terms of feature film ship versions)? They all relate to the original design anyway, so how far away could they get?
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:15 PM
AdmiralClouatre's Avatar
AdmiralClouatre AdmiralClouatre is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Default

Yes, I see your points, but when designing a ship of the PAST, should you incorporate elements of the FUTURE in the line of the 1701? If anything, this ship would make a more logical progression as the ship that was refit to the TMP 1701, not the TOS 1701 to TMP refit. Am I making any sense?
__________________
"I may throw up on ya." - Leonard McCoy

Last edited by AdmiralClouatre : 03-09-2009 at 12:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:30 PM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Interesting, though one might as easily make a long list of big differences between the TMP E and Abrams'. If Abrams had an actual agenda for hewing close to the TMP Refit version, I doubt he'd base it on details like "three lights underneath the Bridge Module" since having only two would likely have no impact on the ship's character in the film.

On the other hand, TMP was the oldest big screen model of the Enterprise created, and for lack of a better example, might be the closest film series ship to that which appeared in TOS. Given how many people don't watch TOS, he may have started with the version of the E most moviegoers recognize from the TOS-crew films.
Of course they could always have taken a trip to Washington to see the original TOS filming model at the Smithsonian...but that would have meant going for historical accuracy, wouldn't it?

__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:44 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Sure, let's ignore the fact that this is an altered universe again. Besides, this is a new feature film... if you want accurate "historical documents", there will be a new DVD release of GALAXY QUEST coming out soon.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:51 PM
AdmiralClouatre's Avatar
AdmiralClouatre AdmiralClouatre is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Default

Altered universe or not, it's not like Nero stopped by SFC and told the engineers "Hey, I have seen what the future 1701's look like, here's the data. Now make a ship that can stop me!!!!!" You have to take all things into consideration when designing a ship of the past, even when there are future ships to "cheat" off of. And using the "altered universe" argument doesn't co-exist with the almost warp-like speed in the change of technology from the Kelvin to the 1701, and having seen the shots in the trailer of the 1701 surveying the wreckage of these "older generation" ships, then the distance between the tech in the Kelvin can't be that far off from the tech in the 1701, regardless of the age of the Kelvin.

Also, the big bugaboo about this....conglomeration of Trek P,P&F...why isn't there the registry number underneath the saucer? Why stick it on the belly of the ship, where it can't even be seen? Ugh...just a little nitpick I had to get off my chest.
__________________
"I may throw up on ya." - Leonard McCoy
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:56 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Of course the differences in design don't make sense to us viewing only these trailers... because we're missing the story in between these rapid-fire clips. Watch the film in May, THEN we can judge how the Enterprise design 'changed' from what we know, and evaluate those changes as presented.

Having all the evidence in hand is a better way to proceed along these lines.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-09-2009, 12:57 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

Nero didn't make Chekov older, or turn Vulcan skies blue either. This is a new version of Trek.
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 03:05 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.