A large portion of the Trek fanbase is highly resistant to change in their preconceived notion of what Trek should be. (Do I need to point out the irony here? Always tickles me!)
I like the "new Enterprise" design. It looks like what I would think taking the old 1966 model and updating it for a new feature film in 2013 would look like.
I am 33 years old and have been watching Trek since before I could talk, so there's that little qualifier for you who would question my fandom. (Another argument that makes me chuckle)
There are always gonna be people that HATE change or updates. Think of this: if we got Trek films today that were made using perfectly replicated sets, effects, costumes, makeup and the same sort of plot pacing as TOS, what would that movie look like? IMO a comedy/parody. And legions of fans would be online ripping into it about how it just ruined Trek.
This is nothing new. I remember when TNG came out and how the same portion of the fans were screaming "not REAL TREK!!"
New Enterprise looks good! New movies are good and FUN. Haters are bitter and will show up in the forums when you mention anything related to the new movies to make sure the internet knows how displeased they are. And the world keeps spinning. Trek on Mr. Abrams, a 'true Trek fan" here likes what you are doing.
It's all a matter of personal visual taste. To me, the best looking Enterprises of all were the Refit Enterprise and Enterprise-A of the Shatner, Nimoy, and gang films. The forward set connecting tower, the swept pylons, the streamlined nacelles all came together to suggest constant forward motion and a vessel built for speed; a ship that really doesn't need a reverse gear.
It's not too far a reach to suggest that the Enterprise of that generation is classic art deco while the JJprise is the dieselpunk answer to it. The prow jutting forward like the front of a locomotive, the thin waist, the oversized engine cowlings, all suggest a more muscular fighting ship (except for the fantail, which really needs more mass for visual balance).
Most of my problem with the aesthetics is in the aft portion. The closeness of the nacelles at the top of the ship, because of the curve of the pylons, gives the design a sense of top-heaviness. And the thin fantail appears like it is about to crack under the mass of those large nacelles. I know that top-heaviness means nothing in space, but, you take your sense of balance and proportion from the world that you live in.
There are always gonna be people that HATE change or updates. Think of this: if we got Trek films today that were made using perfectly replicated sets, effects, costumes, makeup and the same sort of plot pacing as TOS, what would that movie look like? IMO a comedy/parody. And legions of fans would be online ripping into it about how it just ruined Trek.
Well... I don't hate change but I hate THIS change. And I'm even younger than you. To me the original Enterprise would look out of place in 2009 but the refit from TMP? Why not? Actually I wouldn't complain if the new Enterprise looked similar to Koerners design.
All I gotta say is give Gene the budget Abrams had and who knows what he could have done. From what I understand Gene didn't even see his royalty checks from TOS for years after the show ended, right? Abrams has it easy because of Gene. So, saying nothing of the man personally, but as a fan of his work, he was a cinematic genious akin to Bruce Lee because he wanted to tell stories that dealt with the issues of the time. And look at what he did with sets made of cardboard. He changed the world. Abrams wishes.... though I like the movies because I like action movies.
All I gotta say is give Gene the budget Abrams had and who knows what he could have done. From what I understand Gene didn't even see his royalty checks from TOS for years after the show ended, right? Abrams has it easy because of Gene. So, saying nothing of the man personally, but as a fan of his work, he was a cinematic genious akin to Bruce Lee because he wanted to tell stories that dealt with the issues of the time. And look at what he did with sets made of cardboard. He changed the world. Abrams wishes.... though I like the movies because I like action movies.
Since most people's complaints are that these movies didn't focus enough on story, I don't know that a bigger budget would've made all that much difference for Gene.
A larger budget likely would have let Gene be even more hamfisted with his moralizing. Keep in mind that TOS brought us such subtle morality plays as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (racism is bad, mmmkay?) and "Patterns of Force" (TRIBBLE were bad, mmmkay?).
yeah, classic Trek (and even TNG) was never particularly subtle with its moralizing. Not to mention a bit inconsistent, to modern sensibilities: Racism is Bad, War is Bad, Drugs are Bad, Pollution is Bad, Sexism is Woo Woo Check Out The Headlights on THIS Honey!
:eyeroll:
And to be perfectly fair, we've already seen what happened when Gene got a big budget: it was called The Motion Picture, and was a remake of "The Changeling" padded out with ten-minute vistas of the insides of Vejur, intercut with reaction shots of the cast gaping at the viewscreen.
yeah, classic Trek (and even TNG) was never particularly subtle with its moralizing. Not to mention a bit inconsistent, to modern sensibilities: Racism is Bad, War is Bad, Drugs are Bad, Pollution is Bad, Sexism is Woo Woo Check Out The Headlights on THIS Honey!
:eyeroll:
And to be perfectly fair, we've already seen what happened when Gene got a big budget: it was called The Motion Picture, and was a remake of "The Changeling" padded out with ten-minute vistas of the insides of Vejur, intercut with reaction shots of the cast gaping at the viewscreen.
Don't forget the skin-tight uniforms, and the Decker TRIBBLE
Someone on another thread linked to Gabriel Koerner's concept for an updated Constitution, which I would hope everyone on this thread is already familiar with. Now that is a design that I fully endorse and approve of and would have liked to have seen in the new movies.
The new Enterprise has arrived, big, mean, sexy, and ready to make Star Trek look like the science fiction adventure it was when it began, weird neck, nacelles, and all. That's my two cents, thanks for the read and any feed back!
As they say, everyone has an opinion. The "JJ" Enterprise is not an original design. They simply reworked the existing elements around a bot and applied smoother texturing. I personally find the mid hull neck placement grotesque. I much prefer the simple, elegant, symmetry of the original 1701. The ST:TMP refit was and is drop dead gorgeous in comparison to the "JJ" mod, as far as I'm concerned. In any case, the "JJ" design is non-canon in the original (prime) timeline and will only be remembered until the next "reboot".
[QUOTE=ricorosebud;10422831This is nothing new. I remember when TNG came out and how the same portion of the fans were screaming "not REAL TREK!!" [/QUOTE]
Your post was literally packed with straw man arguments and closed minded generalizations about people who don't share your opinions. Sadly, you seem to believe you are an open minded "Trek fan". The irony of the mountainous mote in your own eye is striking. Aside from all the other questionable statements you made, I find the quoted text above to be quite hilarious. So, at 7 years of age, you remember Trek fans dogging and criticizing TNG? Interesting. YOu see, the historical truth is that TNG received nearly universal praise, from both original Trek fans and the legions of new fans which it attracted. TNG also utilized the same ensemble format and emphasis on interpersonal relationships as TOS, as opposed to the effects driven emphasis of the 2013 alternate reality reboot. So, I'm just curious about who these angry fans are whom you say you recall from age 7 years, when TNG debuted?
Azyurion, I was in my twenties when TNG premiered. And I remember the cries of anguish because Jean-Luc Picard was no Jim Kirk. (Then when DS9 premiered, it was called "boring" because Sisko's home didn't move around a lot, and there were plentiful accusations that it was just a B5 ripoff anyway. And need I point out the similarities between VOY and "Lost In Space"?)
Anyway, if the new Enterprise design actually needs that much defense (I don't think it does), here's what it almost looked like in TMP:
Your post was literally packed with straw man arguments and closed minded generalizations about people who don't share your opinions. Sadly, you seem to believe you are an open minded "Trek fan". The irony of the mountainous mote in your own eye is striking. Aside from all the other questionable statements you made, I find the quoted text above to be quite hilarious. So, at 7 years of age, you remember Trek fans dogging and criticizing TNG? Interesting. YOu see, the historical truth is that TNG received nearly universal praise, from both original Trek fans and the legions of new fans which it attracted. TNG also utilized the same ensemble format and emphasis on interpersonal relationships as TOS, as opposed to the effects driven emphasis of the 2013 alternate reality reboot. So, I'm just curious about who these angry fans are whom you say you recall from age 7 years, when TNG debuted?
Yep at 7 years old I recall dogging and criticizing of TNG. Surprised? Impossible? Believe what you like. Do you want a breakdown of how I was aware of these arguments at such a tender and unaware age? Well, the show did run for seven years in its original run. Ages 7-14 by your math (though I feel like I was older when it ended, not checking dates) In other words, PLENTY of time to hear from the disgruntled part of the fans from various sources. Shall I list those?
And for calling my statements thin, I find it laughable that you missed the point I was making and instead plastered your view of what you think I meant over it. Use all the verbiage you wish in an effort to sound intelligent.
As simply as I can put it: there always has been and always will be a certain part of any fanbase opposed to anything changing, re-imagining, or a new vision of the original incarnation of their chosen franchise. It is idealized. Others fans are more accepting and as long as the new braintrust don't stray too far from the sticking points, enjoy the ride. As one of the core Star Trek philosophies is acceptance of other ideals, it is there that I find it the humor and irony in those Trek fans that fall into the former category. I am not criticizing those with opinions that differ from mine, but I am those who display arrogance enough to think they have been handed some sort of golden scepter to decide what will or will not be considered "Star Trek" and "real Trek fans".
I hope I have made it clear what I was attempting to say. Feel free to insult my intelligence, call me a bigot and liar or tell the internet how amused you are at my opinion again. Happily, I know I am an open minded "Trek fan". I don't need a stamp of approval.
Someone on another thread linked to Gabriel Koerner's concept for an updated Constitution, which I would hope everyone on this thread is already familiar with. Now that is a design that I fully endorse and approve of and would have liked to have seen in the new movies.
AWESOME,AWESOME,AWESOME!!!!!
While personally I have nothing against JJ's interpretation of the Connie, THIS is an impressive looking ship!!!!
It just looks "right", but can't put into words why, it just does.:)
I find the quoted text above to be quite hilarious. So, at 7 years of age, you remember Trek fans dogging and criticizing TNG? Interesting. YOu see, the historical truth is that TNG received nearly universal praise, from both original Trek fans and the legions of new fans which it attracted. TNG also utilized the same ensemble format and emphasis on interpersonal relationships as TOS, as opposed to the effects driven emphasis of the 2013 alternate reality reboot. So, I'm just curious about who these angry fans are whom you say you recall from age 7 years, when TNG debuted?
Azyurion, I was in my twenties when TNG premiered. And I remember the cries of anguish because Jean-Luc Picard was no Jim Kirk. (Then when DS9 premiered, it was called "boring" because Sisko's home didn't move around a lot, and there were plentiful accusations that it was just a B5 ripoff anyway. And need I point out the similarities between VOY and "Lost In Space"?)
Exactly. I was 14 at the time TNG debuted, and I recall there was even some animosity from the TOS cast.
...at 7 years of age, you remember Trek fans dogging and criticizing TNG? Interesting. YOu see, the historical truth is that TNG received nearly universal praise, from both original Trek fans and the legions of new fans which it attracted...
Despite the apparent similarities with the original series, the creators of TNG were adamant about creating a bold, independent vision of the future. The public did not widely accept the show on its own terms until the airing of "The Best of Both Worlds", which marked a shift towards higher drama, serious plot lines, and a less episodic nature.
If you're gonna be publicly arrogant about something, be sure your statements and claims are correct...
These sketches need to be re-buried. Let us never speak of them again.
I think we need to keep the link handy. That way, if anyone ever says that any ship design Cryptic gives us couldn't possibly be any uglier, we can present this as a counterargument.
I think we need to keep the link handy. That way, if anyone ever says that any ship design Cryptic gives us couldn't possibly be any uglier, we can present this as a counterargument.
But at what cost I ask you.
Think of all the poor naive people who don't know any better you would be unleashing that abomination on, it could drive them mad.
For me, I never cared for the JJ-Prise. Other than the New Look factor with today's CGI, nothing about its design impresses me. Nothing of its design, appearance, has any positive impact to me, though I disliked the Lens Flare of the 2009 movie with the ship interiors.
For me not to care about the central starship named "Enterprise" in a Star Trek movie, is pretty damning.
Sorry, but the old Enterprise, esp. the Connie-Refit, has been well loved in the franchise. When NCC-1701 was lost, that was a HUGE moment in the franchise. I was in total disbelief. I've followed the TOS reruns, watched TMP, loved TWOK, and was enjoying this follow up. But the loss of the Enterprise was shocking, and seeing her shattered, burning hull crashing through the atmosphere was sad.
The ship was the home of the TOS crew for years and years. It's carried them through alot. It's appearance was amazing with the movies. And its loss was felt in the franchise, and it can be seen on the characters' faces seeing her arcing through the atmosphere, destroyed.
Sorry, but the JJ-Prise, nor any other Star Trek vessel since has held that kind of feeling for Star Trek.
IMO, that's because first season TNG was terrible. The hand of Roddenberry was heavy on its neck, and a lot of it was warmed-over ideas and scripts from the aborted "Phase II" a decade before. It didn't really hit its stride until the second season, when the actors and writers got a feel for the characters and Gene's grip started to loosen ("no fighting, no drama, just perfect cardboard standees on a beige bridge being smug about how evolved and perfect they are now to other lesser races"). There's a reason why "Grow the Beard" is a trope title over on That Site - a widely-recognized example (in fandom, at least) of when a show gets serious and starts to not be awful.
And it's a pattern that's repeated itself with all the modern Treks; heck, even some of the early episodes of TOS are rather odd (how many space agencies did the Enterprise report to again? Why is Spock yelling? etc etc). A new show, like a new ship, needs time for the crew to learn to work together and iron out the bugs. ("This series was put together by monkeys.")
For me, I never cared for the JJ-Prise. Other than the New Look factor with today's CGI, nothing about its design impresses me. Nothing of its design, appearance, has any positive impact to me, though I disliked the Lens Flare of the 2009 movie with the ship interiors.
For me not to care about the central starship named "Enterprise" in a Star Trek movie, is pretty damning.
Sorry, but the old Enterprise, esp. the Connie-Refit, has been well loved in the franchise. When NCC-1701 was lost, that was a HUGE moment in the franchise. I was in total disbelief. I've followed the TOS reruns, watched TMP, loved TWOK, and was enjoying this follow up. But the loss of the Enterprise was shocking, and seeing her shattered, burning hull crashing through the atmosphere was sad.
The ship was the home of the TOS crew for years and years. It's carried them through alot. It's appearance was amazing with the movies. And its loss was felt in the franchise, and it can be seen on the characters' faces seeing her arcing through the atmosphere, destroyed.
Sorry, but the JJ-Prise, nor any other Star Trek vessel since has held that kind of feeling for Star Trek.
Kirk: "My God, Bones... What have I done?..."
And poor Scotty watching his Enterprise burn.
I like the 'new Enterprise' as I have already said. (Qualifying statement to keep us on topic)
Warmker: WHY did you bring this up!? Seriously!! Trek has got my emotions stirring a few times, but two moments really stand out. Spock's death and the destruction of the good old original NCC 1701. Both still make me a little sad when I watch them.
Warmaker, you are a villain!
For me, I never cared for the JJ-Prise. Other than the New Look factor with today's CGI, nothing about its design impresses me. Nothing of its design, appearance, has any positive impact to me, though I disliked the Lens Flare of the 2009 movie with the ship interiors.
For me not to care about the central starship named "Enterprise" in a Star Trek movie, is pretty damning.
Sorry, but the old Enterprise, esp. the Connie-Refit, has been well loved in the franchise. When NCC-1701 was lost, that was a HUGE moment in the franchise. I was in total disbelief. I've followed the TOS reruns, watched TMP, loved TWOK, and was enjoying this follow up. But the loss of the Enterprise was shocking, and seeing her shattered, burning hull crashing through the atmosphere was sad.
The ship was the home of the TOS crew for years and years. It's carried them through alot. It's appearance was amazing with the movies. And its loss was felt in the franchise, and it can be seen on the characters' faces seeing her arcing through the atmosphere, destroyed.
Sorry, but the JJ-Prise, nor any other Star Trek vessel since has held that kind of feeling for Star Trek.
Kirk: "My God, Bones... What have I done?..."
And poor Scotty watching his Enterprise burn.
I dunno, I always found the destruction of the E-D in Generations sad as hell. Then again, I was raised on TNG.
I dunno, I always found the destruction of the E-D in Generations sad as hell. Then again, I was raised on TNG.
I've followed TNG when it started and up until I left home for the military in '93. I liked it, but not as much when it first came out. It got better a season or two in.
As I mentioned in my post, I followed TOS and its associated movies, and was what got me hooked for "Star Trek."
The loss of the Enterprise-D was surprising to me, but it didn't hit me like it did with the loss of NCC-1701.
When Kirk and crew got a replacement ship of the same class, fabulous looking as it was, it was not the original TOS, NCC-1701 Enterprise. That "A" designation was a blunt reminder :cool:
I've followed TNG when it started and up until I left home for the military in '93. I liked it, but not as much when it first came out. It got better a season or two in.
As I mentioned in my post, I followed TOS and its associated movies, and was what got me hooked for "Star Trek."
The loss of the Enterprise-D was surprising to me, but it didn't hit me like it did with the loss of NCC-1701.
When Kirk and crew got a replacement ship of the same class, fabulous looking as it was, it was not the original TOS, NCC-1701 Enterprise. That "A" designation was a blunt reminder :cool:
At least it wasn't the Excelsior, as originally planned.
The Constitution says one has the right to a defense attorney, so here goes.
I'm a new age Trek fan, one of the few. I try to explain to my friend the appeal of Star Trek, but they just don't get it..I stand alone. I respect and love the old canon shows, but at the same time, I have been pampered by the Hollywood witchcraft called CGI, displayed so childishly in movies like Avatar, Transformers 1-3, and Pacific Rim (giant Rock'em Sock'em robots....really?). Go back and look at Gene Roddenberry's original 1966 U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701, Constitution Class. Study her, remember her glorious moments, her defeats, victories, sacrifices etc. etc. Now, go out side and look at you mini-van..or coupe, sedan, convertible. If you put warp nacelles on a Prius, it would look more 2255 than the original enterprise. Gene Roddenberry was a genius, but he was genius handicapped by his own time period. The Space Shuttle looks like it could out run the old connie! If J.J. Abrams had put that ship on the big screen, just touching up the looks, not changing the design, it would have been a comedy, and probably a worse failure than poor Nemesis.
Gene Roddenberry had no way of knowing what the year 2255 would look like, he had to base his knowledge off what he saw in the 1960's. We passed the look of Mr. Roddenberry's 2255 in the early 90's. J.J. Abrams had to step into Roddenberry's shoes, and create a future that looked, futuristic, fortunately, he was able to do this in what Roddenberry would consider the future. The Original Series, no matter how good, just doesn't look like the 23rd century, J.J. Abrams had to make something that did. I think he did a marvelous job.
Star Trek needed a face lift like a fly needs swatting. A reboot needs to look like a reboot, not a rehash. No matter what your opinion on her is, the New Enterprise looks like a starship from the future! Swept lines, organic nuances, white washed hallways, a bridge built by Apple, and a window splashed with all sorts of HUD information. Today, that is considered futuristic. The nacelles are large and bulky, giving them a sense of crucial functionality, but are graceful and advanced in appearance next to the long metal tubes of her 1966 grandmother. The engineering deck looks like a place where engineers engineered stuff. In pretty much every other series, it was one room. Running lights are becoming more and more prevalent (shoutout to everyone's favorite trendsetter Audi), Enterprise is now adorned with remarkable accent lights, giving her a majestic yet conservative presence that captures the ship's size(s) and technological superiority.
I have nothing against the original enterprise, it was the one that started it all, but she was made in 1966, and its 2013 now. The law actually states she's an antique. The Abrams Enterprise is a fresh take on Starfleet and is a design that we can all look at and say, "wow, that looks futuristic, I wish I lived in 2255!" We no longer get that affect with the original enterprise, no matter how much we want it to. No take your rightful place in the Trek Hall of Fame 66' Enterprise, you will always be remembered as the one who started it all, but time has taken its toll. The new Enterprise has arrived, big, mean, sexy, and ready to make Star Trek look like the science fiction adventure it was when it began, weird neck, nacelles, and all. That's my two cents, thanks for the read and any feed back!
If it comes to the constitution class I'm actually more a fan of the constitution refit of the later TOS Trekmovies than the TOS series one or the JJ one. But tastes are different & I do think the JJ one looks fine enough.
While there are a lot of ppl out there just hating everything for whatever reasons from the JJ ST movies I'm pretty sure the more level headed complaints has nothing to do with how the inside/outside of the spaceships looks (except maybe the brewery from the 2009 movie) but rather with how sadly forgettable the movies where because of one brainless action sequence following the other and a single movie having more plotholes than several seasons of a ST show.
Which is sad, because IMO they are visually stunning & have a great likeable cast. Together with their budget these movies could have been so much more than a 2h MTV clip.
Comments
I like the "new Enterprise" design. It looks like what I would think taking the old 1966 model and updating it for a new feature film in 2013 would look like.
I am 33 years old and have been watching Trek since before I could talk, so there's that little qualifier for you who would question my fandom. (Another argument that makes me chuckle)
There are always gonna be people that HATE change or updates. Think of this: if we got Trek films today that were made using perfectly replicated sets, effects, costumes, makeup and the same sort of plot pacing as TOS, what would that movie look like? IMO a comedy/parody. And legions of fans would be online ripping into it about how it just ruined Trek.
This is nothing new. I remember when TNG came out and how the same portion of the fans were screaming "not REAL TREK!!"
New Enterprise looks good! New movies are good and FUN. Haters are bitter and will show up in the forums when you mention anything related to the new movies to make sure the internet knows how displeased they are. And the world keeps spinning. Trek on Mr. Abrams, a 'true Trek fan" here likes what you are doing.
It's not too far a reach to suggest that the Enterprise of that generation is classic art deco while the JJprise is the dieselpunk answer to it. The prow jutting forward like the front of a locomotive, the thin waist, the oversized engine cowlings, all suggest a more muscular fighting ship (except for the fantail, which really needs more mass for visual balance).
Most of my problem with the aesthetics is in the aft portion. The closeness of the nacelles at the top of the ship, because of the curve of the pylons, gives the design a sense of top-heaviness. And the thin fantail appears like it is about to crack under the mass of those large nacelles. I know that top-heaviness means nothing in space, but, you take your sense of balance and proportion from the world that you live in.
Since most people's complaints are that these movies didn't focus enough on story, I don't know that a bigger budget would've made all that much difference for Gene.
I mean, most of the TOS movies had fine effects.
:eyeroll:
And to be perfectly fair, we've already seen what happened when Gene got a big budget: it was called The Motion Picture, and was a remake of "The Changeling" padded out with ten-minute vistas of the insides of Vejur, intercut with reaction shots of the cast gaping at the viewscreen.
Don't forget the skin-tight uniforms, and the Decker TRIBBLE
Someone on another thread linked to Gabriel Koerner's concept for an updated Constitution, which I would hope everyone on this thread is already familiar with. Now that is a design that I fully endorse and approve of and would have liked to have seen in the new movies.
Images
Video
Video (from Bridge Commander)
Article (with his thoughts on the actual new E)
As they say, everyone has an opinion. The "JJ" Enterprise is not an original design. They simply reworked the existing elements around a bot and applied smoother texturing. I personally find the mid hull neck placement grotesque. I much prefer the simple, elegant, symmetry of the original 1701. The ST:TMP refit was and is drop dead gorgeous in comparison to the "JJ" mod, as far as I'm concerned. In any case, the "JJ" design is non-canon in the original (prime) timeline and will only be remembered until the next "reboot".
Your post was literally packed with straw man arguments and closed minded generalizations about people who don't share your opinions. Sadly, you seem to believe you are an open minded "Trek fan". The irony of the mountainous mote in your own eye is striking. Aside from all the other questionable statements you made, I find the quoted text above to be quite hilarious. So, at 7 years of age, you remember Trek fans dogging and criticizing TNG? Interesting. YOu see, the historical truth is that TNG received nearly universal praise, from both original Trek fans and the legions of new fans which it attracted. TNG also utilized the same ensemble format and emphasis on interpersonal relationships as TOS, as opposed to the effects driven emphasis of the 2013 alternate reality reboot. So, I'm just curious about who these angry fans are whom you say you recall from age 7 years, when TNG debuted?
Anyway, if the new Enterprise design actually needs that much defense (I don't think it does), here's what it almost looked like in TMP:
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_591_27-insane-but-true-early-versions-famous-characters_p27/#19
(I remember seeing the McQuarrie sketches at the time. This was actually the least objectionable of them, IMO.)
Yep at 7 years old I recall dogging and criticizing of TNG. Surprised? Impossible? Believe what you like. Do you want a breakdown of how I was aware of these arguments at such a tender and unaware age? Well, the show did run for seven years in its original run. Ages 7-14 by your math (though I feel like I was older when it ended, not checking dates) In other words, PLENTY of time to hear from the disgruntled part of the fans from various sources. Shall I list those?
And for calling my statements thin, I find it laughable that you missed the point I was making and instead plastered your view of what you think I meant over it. Use all the verbiage you wish in an effort to sound intelligent.
As simply as I can put it: there always has been and always will be a certain part of any fanbase opposed to anything changing, re-imagining, or a new vision of the original incarnation of their chosen franchise. It is idealized. Others fans are more accepting and as long as the new braintrust don't stray too far from the sticking points, enjoy the ride. As one of the core Star Trek philosophies is acceptance of other ideals, it is there that I find it the humor and irony in those Trek fans that fall into the former category. I am not criticizing those with opinions that differ from mine, but I am those who display arrogance enough to think they have been handed some sort of golden scepter to decide what will or will not be considered "Star Trek" and "real Trek fans".
I hope I have made it clear what I was attempting to say. Feel free to insult my intelligence, call me a bigot and liar or tell the internet how amused you are at my opinion again. Happily, I know I am an open minded "Trek fan". I don't need a stamp of approval.
Dismissed.
AWESOME,AWESOME,AWESOME!!!!!
While personally I have nothing against JJ's interpretation of the Connie, THIS is an impressive looking ship!!!!
It just looks "right", but can't put into words why, it just does.:)
STOAlliance Dilomat
My Eyes! My Eyes! They Burn!
I mean seriously it's like the product of a drunken one night stand between the Enterprise and a Star Destroyer.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation
If you're gonna be publicly arrogant about something, be sure your statements and claims are correct...
:rolleyes:
This.
But on the upside, it's the first Enterprise where you can go to the engine room and brew up some beer.
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
These sketches need to be re-buried. Let us never speak of them again.
But at what cost I ask you.
Think of all the poor naive people who don't know any better you would be unleashing that abomination on, it could drive them mad.
For me not to care about the central starship named "Enterprise" in a Star Trek movie, is pretty damning.
Sorry, but the old Enterprise, esp. the Connie-Refit, has been well loved in the franchise. When NCC-1701 was lost, that was a HUGE moment in the franchise. I was in total disbelief. I've followed the TOS reruns, watched TMP, loved TWOK, and was enjoying this follow up. But the loss of the Enterprise was shocking, and seeing her shattered, burning hull crashing through the atmosphere was sad.
The ship was the home of the TOS crew for years and years. It's carried them through alot. It's appearance was amazing with the movies. And its loss was felt in the franchise, and it can be seen on the characters' faces seeing her arcing through the atmosphere, destroyed.
Sorry, but the JJ-Prise, nor any other Star Trek vessel since has held that kind of feeling for Star Trek.
Kirk: "My God, Bones... What have I done?..."
And poor Scotty watching his Enterprise burn.
IMO, that's because first season TNG was terrible. The hand of Roddenberry was heavy on its neck, and a lot of it was warmed-over ideas and scripts from the aborted "Phase II" a decade before. It didn't really hit its stride until the second season, when the actors and writers got a feel for the characters and Gene's grip started to loosen ("no fighting, no drama, just perfect cardboard standees on a beige bridge being smug about how evolved and perfect they are now to other lesser races"). There's a reason why "Grow the Beard" is a trope title over on That Site - a widely-recognized example (in fandom, at least) of when a show gets serious and starts to not be awful.
And it's a pattern that's repeated itself with all the modern Treks; heck, even some of the early episodes of TOS are rather odd (how many space agencies did the Enterprise report to again? Why is Spock yelling? etc etc). A new show, like a new ship, needs time for the crew to learn to work together and iron out the bugs. ("This series was put together by monkeys.")
I like the 'new Enterprise' as I have already said. (Qualifying statement to keep us on topic)
Warmker: WHY did you bring this up!? Seriously!! Trek has got my emotions stirring a few times, but two moments really stand out. Spock's death and the destruction of the good old original NCC 1701. Both still make me a little sad when I watch them.
Warmaker, you are a villain!
I dunno, I always found the destruction of the E-D in Generations sad as hell. Then again, I was raised on TNG.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I've followed TNG when it started and up until I left home for the military in '93. I liked it, but not as much when it first came out. It got better a season or two in.
As I mentioned in my post, I followed TOS and its associated movies, and was what got me hooked for "Star Trek."
The loss of the Enterprise-D was surprising to me, but it didn't hit me like it did with the loss of NCC-1701.
When Kirk and crew got a replacement ship of the same class, fabulous looking as it was, it was not the original TOS, NCC-1701 Enterprise. That "A" designation was a blunt reminder :cool:
At least it wasn't the Excelsior, as originally planned.
If it comes to the constitution class I'm actually more a fan of the constitution refit of the later TOS Trekmovies than the TOS series one or the JJ one. But tastes are different & I do think the JJ one looks fine enough.
While there are a lot of ppl out there just hating everything for whatever reasons from the JJ ST movies I'm pretty sure the more level headed complaints has nothing to do with how the inside/outside of the spaceships looks (except maybe the brewery from the 2009 movie) but rather with how sadly forgettable the movies where because of one brainless action sequence following the other and a single movie having more plotholes than several seasons of a ST show.
Which is sad, because IMO they are visually stunning & have a great likeable cast. Together with their budget these movies could have been so much more than a 2h MTV clip.