|
Post by lurker on Nov 11, 2008 20:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pierce on Nov 11, 2008 20:51:53 GMT -5
How the holy fuck can you have a quote like this--
--below a picture of something that looks only vaguely like the Enterprise?
Here's what I said about it on another forum:
To me, the saucer is almost entirely from the movies, the connecting dorsal seems to blend the movie version with the McQuarrie "Planet of Titans" version, the secondary hull is kind of the like the movie version if you were watching a 4:3 pan & scan version stretched on a widescreen TV, the nacelle struts again seem to blend movie & McQuarrie... but I think I'm most disappointed in the nacelles, because they seem to be 100% from Gabe Koerner's "Cylon" Enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Nov 11, 2008 22:21:37 GMT -5
Haha It's the Ambassador-class! Thanks for pointing it out Lurker. After reading the accompanying article, I have to say that if he was going for evocatin of that Kirk-Enteprise TMP scene, this ship goes overboard because the thing about the TMP ship is that it was detailed but also elegant, like a swan, with lots of interesting oblique angles that drew your eye in triangle patterns across the screen as you looked at it, which is what great pictures of classical pieces of art do. This new ship however is a strange mix of blocky and elegant and doesn't seem to know which way to go, and everything aft and below the saucer says "distortion, Phantom of the Opera-style" rather than swan-like grace. I rather think that the designer of this ship has rejected classical art themes to go with something riskier, which is a mistake because knowledge of things classical was TOS' strong suite, from Shakespeare-inspired stories to enemies and alien civilizations fashioned after the ancient Romans and Greeks. But what can we do...Maybe rejection of all of that is what they're churning out at art school these days? Bottom line is that people will not enjoy looking at this ship, especially from that 3/4 angle that the E always uses in the old shots, because the 3/4 angle is a classical mode. Compare the way the TMP ship looks from that angle...the negative space between the interconnecting dorsal and the warp engine pylons created an equilateral triangle, suggesting to our subconscious the idea of perfection and beauty. This ship in that area has something that isn't even a triangle, more like a snow cone pointing to a wierd angle.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Nov 13, 2008 1:01:08 GMT -5
This is more of what I would like to have seen. A "Constitution skeleton" approach, as opposed to a complete fantasy redesign. They could aztec this till they go blind and it would look good and be a belieavable pre-finished 1701. Close-up of the saucer. Note that the self-illumination lights are similar to the one on the TMP ship except much larger (diameter-wise) but lie within the parameters of the TOS ship's hull. We can say that this feature was "covered over" in the final design phase of this ship because of its dubious value. We can also say that the diagonal pylons were gotten rid of in favor of straight pylons. Everything else is "covering over" will hull skin and voila you have the TOS ship.
|
|
|
Post by StressPuppy on Nov 13, 2008 2:13:04 GMT -5
I already threw my 2 cents about the new "old' ship. In another board. I was a big advocate of improving the old design but this went a little overboard IMO. It is a downgrade of the TMP ship with some "gee i dont freaking know what this is, but it looks cool" mixed in. Then again this is "Re-Boot" movie despite all the hype jj is trying to put across that it is not. Just like the new BSG take everything you know about Star Trek and toss it out the window. Trek XI is the BSG of star trek.
For the record i dont like the new design, but that may be the old "purist" in me. Maybe if i saw more of it.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Nov 13, 2008 8:07:10 GMT -5
After looking at it a few times, I don't feel as badly toward it as I did at first. I still don't like it, but I may be able to live with it. I think that it would have been much more graceful if the dorsal connecting neck was further forward on the secondary hull and if the secondary hull was more substanial. Hopefully this design will not ruin the movie for me because overall I am optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Nov 13, 2008 8:10:41 GMT -5
I notice the Enterprise has more traditional Phaser turrets as opposed to the pop up ones the Kelvin has. Maybe this is to help show that the Kelvin is an older design?
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Nov 13, 2008 12:21:31 GMT -5
Hilarious how the article starts off "JJ Abrams wasn't a huge fan of the original TV series..."
I think we're gonna have to face it. Star Trek is a Hollywood franchise, which means they will do whatever it takes to get new viewers into the box office for that slim 3 week period when it's in the theaters.
But I wonder if anyone there realizes that when it comes to Star Trek they're basically preaching to a Republican fanbase, who need to be pandered to lest you risk alienation and "lose the election" so to speak. That new ship is basically them promoting gay marriage in our faces!
|
|
|
Post by StressPuppy on Nov 13, 2008 15:17:38 GMT -5
The analogy of comparing the new big-e to gay marriage is just wrong LOL. Though after looking at some of the cast promo photos i question their sexuality The only few of the new cast i like is Simon Peg (mr Shawn of the Dead), and Eric Bana. I never saw lost so i dont know about the new Spock, tho he does seem to fit the role least in pictures. It will take some time to get used to this new ship just like the new BSG took a little time to get used to, but good storytelling, and acting made that show. Hopefully the same will be true with trek XI, and i hope its not another cloverfield. What we are looking at is a classic example of "Culture Shock". All of the old school trekkies were expecting something that looked a little more like the classic Big-E. This obviously is not going to happen. The point is none of the old school wanted any change. The thing is isnt that what trek is all about? To change? to evolve? Infinite diversity in infinite combination's? I know we cant expect "everyone" to have an open mind. This is not the '60's. This is not your fathers (or in some cases grandfathers) Star Trek anymore. It is the 21st century. The new trek will look, and feel absolutely NOTHING like the trek we all know and love. Despite me not liking the new design i am not going to base an entire movie on just that. i will give it a chance. If only to just see how Simon Peg pulls off "scotty
|
|
|
Post by James Smith on Nov 13, 2008 18:31:20 GMT -5
This is not the '60's. This is not your fathers (or in some cases grandfathers) Star Trek anymore. It is the 21st century. The new trek will look, and feel absolutely NOTHING like the trek we all know and love. Despite me not liking the new design i am not going to base an entire movie on just that. i will give it a chance. If only to just see how Simon Peg pulls off "scotty See, I'm absolutely fine with that. But if TPTB won't admit that this is a re-boot....They keep using different words to dance around the issue. Fine. So I'm going to say that as a ship that is supposed to fit into the canon they're trying to 'respect', this new ship sucks donkey balls. You're right though. I can't wait to see Simon Pegg's take on Scotty. I reckon he'll pull it off.
|
|
|
Post by USS Mariner on Nov 13, 2008 20:36:24 GMT -5
I never expected the original to appear in Abrams Trek, but I didn't expect it to be this terrible.
|
|
|
Post by StressPuppy on Nov 13, 2008 22:19:23 GMT -5
The new ship is not "that bad" if it were only just another ship of the week, and not the big-e herself.
We have no choice but to accept this as a re-boot despite the powers to be saying it is not. Ex Astris is already dismissing Trek XI as semi-canon like the animated series, or galactica 1980
I am more worried about the 24th century "Romulan" timeship the new TOS big-e is supposed to face. I read its a cross between a christmas tree, and the b5 shadow battlecrab. If this is true then i am gonna be sick. Yes i know the TOS era is not supposed to know about Romulans (hence Neros ears being chewed off), but i hope THAT design isnt as stupid as the "scimitar" was.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Nov 13, 2008 23:14:14 GMT -5
We are church people and they are advocating prolific anal relations and maybe even bestiality. It's gotten bad, folks...real bad!
|
|
|
Post by USS Mariner on Nov 15, 2008 12:57:46 GMT -5
If I have to take it in the ass, those boys better be purty.
|
|
|
Post by StressPuppy on Nov 15, 2008 14:51:04 GMT -5
Having seen the second trailer i am rethinking this new ship. Still no final judgment yet. They almost got her dead on from the front, and back views (minus the awkward nacelles that i still have issue with). The "tailpipe glows LOL. U know the place there the aft "globe" was on the originals nacelles. It almost looks like a jets afterburner when it goes to warp. Though she does have impulse glows as well. Not that you can really tell through the "shakey" camera shots. and all the shit blowing up in between views of her. Thank god for pause buttons Young Spock beating the snot out of young kirk...classic Trailer was quite good. let us hope the movie is just as good.
|
|