Jump to content

Home

Star Trek (Pic Heavy)


HerbieZ
 Share

Recommended Posts

And it was the same ship from a TOS episode which was the same exact class as the NCC-1701.

 

I guess me referencing 'Tholian Web' means I obviously didn't know that.

 

Then why not try to bring in the USS Titan, which is Captain Riker's ship, seriously it is better to not throw something in which messes with known canon, something that takes place after Nemesis would give a lot more freedom and running room.

 

Because the Titan is a piece of crap, and another Frakes directed film, or a film with Frakes as the star would be even worse. And there's no-one left to fight post Nemesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NCC-1701 and its history are engraved in actual space history as well. Changing anything that has historial context is bogus. Fans pushed to have the first NASA shuttle called Enterprise; thus, it would be foolish to redesign something that has historical significance. We are talking about a good 40 years of Star Trek history being blown. NCC-1701 represents a decade of change in the United States and the world. It has a place in both science-fiction and world history. J. J. Abrams was wrong to radically redesign the original Enterprise. I hope there is backlash.

Frankly, the fans may care, but the general public couldn't care less.

 

That said, the constipated duck look is not one I'd choose for the ship myself. I also think it looks a bit too... sculpted. It looks like it should sit on the mantlepiece and gather dust, not fight.

 

But then like I said, for me, this will always be the 'new' Enterprise. :p

 

@mattig: Aside from the deflector array looking like it did in TMP, I'd broadly agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the fans may care, but the general public couldn't care less.

 

That said, the constipated duck look is not one I'd choose for the ship myself. I also think it looks a bit too... sculpted. It looks like it should sit on the mantlepiece and gather dust, not fight.

 

But then like I said, for me, this will always be the 'new' Enterprise. :p

 

@mattig: Aside from the deflector array looking like it did in TMP, I'd broadly agree.

Movie writters use to be visionaries. Now they are rebooting hacks. No one has an original idea anymore. We are stuck in reboot hell or something. I agree with you Darth InSidious. Enterprise from the motion picture is a beautiful ship. Thanks for the video. :D

 

Yar-El is right though, this would almost be like trying to modernize the Statue of Liberty or something of that nature. You don't mess with something that is this symbolic.
It has the prestege of being a national monument. NCC-1701 represents science-fiction history, and the events that unfolded in the 1960s. It has a sense of heritage to its origins. You don't mess with anything that historical and expect people to just roll-over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movie writters use to be visionaries. Now they are rebooting hacks. No one has an original idea anymore. We are stuck in reboot hell or something. I agree with you Darth InSidious. Enterprise from the motion picture is a beautiful ship. Thanks for the video. :D

 

I'm not sure that I'd say they were 'visionary' necessarily. Star Trek II is a decent film, for example, but it heavily pastiches Moby Dick (to the point of cribbing dialogue - "he tasks me!" etc.).

 

There certainly was a time when films were written by writers and directed by directors; I think the problem now is more tha they're written by directors and directed by actors. And more importantly, there isn't any money outside Hollywood. Which means there's no money outside the cliché.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I'd say they were 'visionary' necessarily. Star Trek II is a decent film, for example, but it heavily pastiches Moby Dick (to the point of cribbing dialogue - "he tasks me!" etc.).

 

There certainly was a time when films were written by writers and directed by directors; I think the problem now is more tha they're written by directors and directed by actors. And more importantly, there isn't any money outside Hollywood. Which means there's no money outside the cliché.

Now that stinks. How about Vancouver, Canada? Do you think they will force some competition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I'd say they were 'visionary' necessarily. Star Trek II is a decent film, for example, but it heavily pastiches Moby Dick (to the point of cribbing dialogue - "he tasks me!" etc.).

 

There certainly was a time when films were written by writers and directed by directors; I think the problem now is more tha they're written by directors and directed by actors. And more importantly, there isn't any money outside Hollywood. Which means there's no money outside the cliché.

 

The charecters in Star Trek II were seen in a Star Trek TOS episode. The fact that the Enterprise model is practically a landmark, represents a bit of history. You'll notice that from Doctor Who, they have kept the TARDIS as a phone booth for probably the same reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charecters in Star Trek II were seen in a Star Trek TOS episode. The fact that the Enterprise model is practically a landmark, represents a bit of history. You'll notice that from Doctor Who, they have kept the TARDIS as a phone booth for probably the same reason.

 

No, the Tardis is kept as a Police Box because it's chameleon circuit is broken.

 

I think we should all calm down a bit, and give this new Enterprise a chance to sink in, then come back to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charecters in Star Trek II were seen in a Star Trek TOS episode. The fact that the Enterprise model is practically a landmark, represents a bit of history. You'll notice that from Doctor Who, they have kept the TARDIS as a phone booth for probably the same reason.
How about the two Time Machines?

 

TheTimeMachine-4CC4.JPG

 

the_time_machine_large_01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the Tardis is kept as a Police Box because it's chameleon circuit is broken.

 

The point remains though they still used the old police box when they could have made it look more modern, but the Police Box is a part of the Doctor Who lore.

 

I think we should all calm down a bit, and give this new Enterprise a chance to sink in, then come back to it.

 

The more I think about it the more annoyed about it I am, that ship is a part of history, you don't mess with something like that.

 

 

Also the time machines aren't a good example because the author was long dead by the time those movies came out.

 

The series, a bunch of movies etc. were already out before Gene Roddenberry died.

 

That ship we see in TOS as much as people try to deny it is a part of our history, it deserves to be treated with respect, not butchered by one of these modern directors. They can work with the older model and update the textures for goodness sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ship is a part of fiction, not history. It's very important not to confuse the two.

 

The ship is a part of both, the ship is an icon a hallmark which changed science fiction forever. Before Star Trek, scifi ships were either rockets of flying saucers. The Enterprise threw that out the window, that ship was an inspiration for a generation of scientists and engineers, hoping to one day actually bring about the creation of a ship like the Enterprise, of reaching for the stars.

 

The ship was fictional, but it transcended fiction as inventors worked to invent technology seen on the series.

 

Like it or not, it's moved beyond just being a fictional ship, it did something that we hadn't seen in Battlestar Galactica or Lost In Space. The ship actually became a symbol, there was a Space Shuttle named after this fictional ship for crying out loud.

 

So I'm going to say that this ship is off-limits to play with at the level these people are messing with it. If they want to play with it, play with the textures or do minute changes, not changes to the entire ship's structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ship was fictional, but it transcended fiction as inventors worked to invent technology seen on the series.

 

Darathy's point still stands, however.

 

So I'm going to say that this ship is off-limits to play with at the level these people are messing with it. If they want to play with it, play with the textures or do minute changes, not changes to the entire ship's structure.

 

You don't decide what is and isn't off-limits. CBS/Paramount does, and they're clearly happy with it. This Star Trek isn't being aimed solely at die-hard fans - it's trying to bring Trek back into the mainstream.

 

You don't like it, fine. There seem to be others that do, and others that don't. I myself didn't like it at first - but after reading into it, and seeing the opinions of those in the know (Sternbach, for example) i'm satisfied that they know what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darathy's point still stands, however.

 

No, because the ship transcended that.

 

 

You don't decide what is and isn't off-limits. CBS/Paramount does, and they're clearly happy with it. This Star Trek isn't being aimed solely at die-hard fans - it's trying to bring Trek back into the mainstream.

 

Didn't CBS also originally cancel the series, and the Enterprise is a bit of a grey area, because it was Gene Roddenberry's with another production company before Paramount Pictures came in. However, it's a disservice to the man Jeffries that designed the ship and Gene Roddenberry. It's also a disservice to all the people that kept the series alive in books.

 

You don't like it, fine. There seem to be others that do, and others that don't. I myself didn't like it at first - but after reading into it, and seeing the opinions of those in the know (Sternbach, for example) i'm satisfied that they know what they're doing.

 

Well, here's another problem the villain, the Romulans had been silent for quite a long time until their encounter in TOS. This re-imagining doesn't fly because it flies in the face of literally all the other series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ship is a part of fiction, not history. It's very important not to confuse the two.
It would be called popculture of it's time; thus, it would represent a historical moment in American lifestyle. Wouldn't it become a symbol of the Cold War era? Most of the stories in the original series were issues faced in the the 1960s. Changing how the Enterprise looks will be similar to rewritting history. NASA used the name Enterprise because of the iconic ship, and what it represents to popculture and science-fiction.

 

the-enterprise.jpg

 

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/67680main_enterprise_trek_full.jpg

 

enterprise-01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be called popculture of it's time; thus, it would represent a historical moment in American lifestyle. Wouldn't it become a symbol of the Cold War era? Most of the stories in the original series were issues faced in the the 1960s. Changing how the Enterprise looks will be similar to rewritting history. NASA used the name Enterprise because of the iconic ship, and what it represents to popculture and science-fiction.

 

Furthermore, before Paramount came in, Star Trek Fans were writing novels to keep the story alive. Paramount wasn't the original studio involved with Star Trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't CBS also originally cancel the series, and the Enterprise is a bit of a grey area, because it was Gene Roddenberry's with another production company before Paramount Pictures came in. However, it's a disservice to the man Jeffries that designed the ship and Gene Roddenberry. It's also a disservice to all the people that kept the series alive in books.

 

And you could say that pretty much everything after he died is a disservice, but i'm not getting into that.

 

Well, here's another problem the villain, the Romulans had been silent for quite a long time until their encounter in TOS. This re-imagining doesn't fly because it flies in the face of literally all the other series.

 

Again - re-imagining. Exactly what they did with BSG - new universe, familiar characters, different stories. That's the whole point - it makes everything new, establishes a new continuity, completely separate and distinct from the original, cherished one.

 

I'm just waiting for the screams of 'J.J. Abrams raped my childhood'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would have preferred the original Enterprise configuration with some detail enhancements for the movie (yeah, they really should have gone that route), I don't think that this constitutes a deal-breaker for the entire film. I'm going to remain optimistic and see the movie anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would have preferred the original Enterprise configuration with some detail enhancements for the movie (yeah, they really should have gone that route), I don't think that this constitutes a deal-breaker for the entire film. I'm going to remain optimistic and see the movie anyway.

 

agreed. its coming out in dec. right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there sex in a Star Trek movie?

 

Cleaner Trailer Here

 

Everything else looks amazing. I'm now sold on this movie. I got goose bumps and chills from watching that trailer. It reminds me of how I first felt from watching the original movies. This movie is going to rule.

 

It reminds me of this

Edited by Yar-El
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...