And that it's sad, as it's against the whole point of trying to understand anything that's different (one of the main points of ST).
There are a lot of knee-jerk anti-Abrams people on the one side. On the other hand, there are a lot of people on the other side who act like any criticism whatsoever of this new movie somehow means you're not a 'real' Star Trek fan (you're violating IDIC! or whatever...)
Being a fan of something doesn't mean that when the producers of said thing hand you a plate of steaming excrement you eat it up with a smile.
The movie has already opened in several parts of the world, as much as you want to tell people to see it before they attack it, I'll tell you, without spoiling anything...
...see it before you defend it. There's a significant plot twist that a lot of people aren't going to like, and even more people are going to hate the ending.
Blocky angular hull is miss-matched to the curves of the saucer. Better? :P Regardless of my opinion or appreciation of the design, the fact that the two hulls are of two totally different design aesthetics is impossible to ignore, and impossible to consider in a positive light, as a good design would be consistent across the entire ship. The only thing which is consistent across the Vengeance, is the color of the hull...
Your appreciation of the ship can certainly be different to mine, and I have no issue with that. The inconsistency of the design, however, is a fact, regardless of our perceptions of it...
Yeah, that is better, thank you :P It is a fact that the design is inconsistent, while I don't exactly agree about 'good' designs being consistent, or only able to be considered in a negative light when they're not, because last time I checked that's not a rule... but thank you anyway
I see you care about consistency, whether it's in plot or ship aesthetics. It's your view, and I respect that.
For my view, no matter what the consistency or design (ship, plot or otherwise), I consider it all on it's own merits. Even if something doesn't agree with me, I don't let it ruin my enjoyment. For example, if I did consider the JJEnterprise OR the Vengeance 'ugly', I STILL wouldn't let them ruin my enjoyment of the ships themselves.
For the record, I think both look good in their own ways, but that's my opinion.
My view is just different that way I find very few things that rub me the wrong way in looks or aesthetics overall. And even if they do, I don't let it ruin the enjoyment one bit
...see it before you defend it. There's a significant plot twist that a lot of people aren't going to like, and even more people are going to hate the ending.
I've seen much of ST that came before it, and they never influenced my view, before or after I saw the film. JJTrek is different, MUCH different than Prime Trek, but I understood that and loved it regardless.
Even if I didn't, I wouldn't consider it awful just because it exists, unlike some of the more extreme opinions... true it's their opinions, but the more extreme ones just seem stupid imo.
Edit: thought he meant JJStarTrek, not Into Darkness.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I have seen the film, and I've blackened the following sentences to prove it:
I'm not talking about the first film. I'm talking about 'Into Darkness'. See it before you defend it. I thought the first one was a mixed bag. The casting was really good. There were some plot contrivances to get those characters together on one ship with Kirk in command, but that was okay. Some of the characters (Kirk in particular) were a little bit of a caricature that I didn't like. But I thought it was an okay setup since they were pressing the reboot button.
As I said, I don't want to ruin the new one for anybody with spoilers, but the surface complaints about ship design and the like that you're getting now are going to be nothing compared to the controversy there's going to be once people in the U.S. have seen the film.
My own opinion? The first JJ Trek is sort of like Generations. Decent movie, succeeds in 'passing the torch' to a new status quo. This new one is going to go down as the next Nemesis (which you'll see it has a lot in common with). But no, 'Into Darkness' is not as bad as Star Trek V.
So... your pre-judging the aesthetics of a form-follows-function design while reserving judgment of the actual functionality?
I can't judge the functionality, as it could be absolutely anything, I'm just saying that the aesthetics of the ship aren't consistent, and it looks miss-matched and ungainly...
I'm not talking about the first film. I'm talking about 'Into Darkness'. See it before you defend it. I thought the first one was a mixed bag. The casting was really good. There were some plot contrivances to get those characters together on one ship with Kirk in command, but that was okay. Some of the characters (Kirk in particular) were a little bit of a caricature that I didn't like. But I thought it was an okay setup since they were pressing the reboot button.
As I said, I don't want to ruin the new one for anybody with spoilers, but the surface complaints about ship design and the like that you're getting now are going to be nothing compared to the controversy there's going to be once people in the U.S. have seen the film.
My own opinion? The first JJ Trek is sort of like Generations. Decent movie, succeeds in 'passing the torch' to a new status quo. This new one is going to go down as the next Nemesis (which you'll see it has a lot in common with). But no, 'Into Darkness' is not as bad as Star Trek V.
Ah, my bad... so I've got a ways to go before it shows in the US for me.
But I'll tell you this: as I said to marcusdkane, my view of things is very... unusual. Anything from 'mildly bad' to 'epic', I like the same as if it's the best thing out there, for each individual movie (or any entertainment). Sorta off like having 'the wonder of a child' on each viewing. I don't consider that a bad thing, because I can still analyze the movie in thought, consider which ones I like more or less on subsequent viewings, but still retain much of the initial like.
And I say this from more than 10 years of movie watching. Into Darkness probably won't change that.
Whether the plot is cliche, original, or done a thousand times... I wouldn't care :P I view them all the same, and so far there are very few things that rubbed me the wrong way, and few films that I actually didn't like. And the ones I didn't like, that were truly bad for me = 'The Last Airbender' or 'Dragonball: Evolution'. And in my opinion, even Star Trek V or Nemesis weren't that bad.
But even if I didn't like them, I wound't let that ruin my enjoyment of watching them again. I probably wouldn't watch them often, but still.
...Okay, got a bit off track there. And while I am defending it, I'm doing so because of those trashing it before they've even seen it. Which I think is a 'stupid' extreme reaction, really.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Yeah, that is better, thank you :-P It is a fact that the design is inconsistent, while I don't exactly agree about 'good' designs being consistent, or only able to be considered in a negative light when they're not, because last time I checked that's not a rule... but thank you anyway :-)
I see you care about consistency, whether it's in plot or ship aesthetics. It's your view, and I respect that.
For my view, no matter what the consistency or design (ship, plot or otherwise), I consider it all on it's own merits. Even if something doesn't agree with me, I don't let it ruin my enjoyment. For example, if I did consider the JJEnterprise OR the Vengeance 'ugly', I STILL wouldn't let them ruin my enjoyment of the ships themselves.
For the record, I think both look good in their own ways, but that's my opinion.
My view is just different that way :-D I find very few things that rub me the wrong way in looks or aesthetics overall. And even if they do, I don't let it ruin the enjoyment one bit
I view the design of the Vengeance as the equivalent of someone welding the back of a Hummer on the front of a Bugatti Veyron...
I'm happy to reserve judgement on the plot etc until I see the film (which will probably be a few years, as I have no intention of paying to watch it on the Big Screen or by a purchased DVD) and I have no doubt that the Vengeance is going to kick some serious TRIBBLE onscreen. I think it safest to compare the Vengeance to a Lego suppository... No matter how it's used, someone's getting hurt :eek:
PS For the record, I rather enjoyed the design of the JJEnterprise :cool:
I view the design of the Vengeance as the equivalent of someone welding the back of a Hummer on the front of a Bugatti Veyron...
I'm happy to reserve judgement on the plot etc until I see the film (which will probably be a few years, as I have no intention of paying to watch it on the Big Screen or by a purchased DVD) and I have no doubt that the Vengeance is going to kick some serious TRIBBLE onscreen. I think it safest to compare the Vengeance to a Lego suppository... No matter how it's used, someone's getting hurt :eek:
PS For the record, I rather enjoyed the design of the JJEnterprise :cool:
Since I'm not a car person, I'm gonna assume you're saying something along the lines of a person fusing a PS3 with the a very old SNES... or something similar.
Which I'll agree would be mildly odd, because that's just plain unusual :P But I wouldn't let that unusual oddity stop me from considering it lol
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Since I'm not a car person, I'm gonna assume you're saying something along the lines of a person fusing a PS3 with the a very old SNES... or something similar.
Which I'll agree would be mildly odd, because that's just plain unusual :P But I wouldn't let that unusual oddity stop me from considering it lol
I'm not much of a car person either, but a Hummer is a very angular off-road vehicle, a Veyron is one of the fastest production cars on the planet, with a very curved, flowing design... In this instance, the blockiness of the Hummer would totally negate the capability of the Veyron (as well as not looking too good
I'm not much of a car person either, but a Hummer is a very angular off-road vehicle, a Veyron is one of the fastest production cars on the planet, with a very curved, flowing design... In this instance, the blockiness of the Hummer would totally negate the capability of the Veyron (as well as not looking too good
Hmm, so putting the box 'roof' on a curved, flowing car design, essentially...
I see where you're coming from, and how that would look ugly, but I can't quite agree I probably wouldn't call it great-looking, but not ugly either. More like 'huh, interesting' lol, at least independently of what I think of it's capabilities
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Hmm, so putting the box 'roof' on a curved, flowing car design, essentially...
I see where you're coming from, and how that would look ugly, but I can't quite agree I probably wouldn't call it great-looking, but not ugly either. More like 'huh, interesting' lol, at least independently of what I think of it's capabilities
Pretty much...
That's fair enough, it would be pretty counter-productive though, and probably wouldn't be winning any design awards, and that's what I was meaning with regard the look of the Vengeance... As someone who does design work, how well something balances aesthetically is very key to how I view things
Haven't seen it yet, but judting from numerous reviews I do know enough to be able to say that Abrams and Co. are really proving to everyone that they're not the talent that they are purported to be. This movie will reiterate that they really are completely incapable of coming up with a genuine original idea between them.
Do you mean the critic reviews, or just reviews from other people?
Because as I've found out long ago, reviews from either source aren't the end-all argument about a film/video game's entertainment value to you. That's up the the individual imo
And besides, the film hasn't even come out everywhere just yet... not to mention immediate first reactions can often change. Some didn't like the Galaxy when it first came out on TNG, but have since come to love it
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
"Star Trek: the Motion Picture", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "Star Trek: 2009", and "Star Trek: Into Darkness" had massive enemy ships. Another interesting reoccurring plot device is 'revenge'.
One of the reasons why "Star Trek" was on the decline was due to recycled story elements. Regardless about how they redress the franchise, the overall problems that are plaguing "Star Trek" still remain. Its rather sad.
According to a few early released reviews, the movie is a mix bag of excitement and missed opportunities. "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is begin described as fun; however, the movie also contains moments that leave you angry.
*shrugs*
We will have to wait and see.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" may have been boring to some, but it was a work of pure science-fiction. I do not believe Abrams can make a "Star trek" movie, which mirrors movies similar to "2001 Space odyssey", "The Time Machine (1960s)", and "The Black Hole". Even though his movies are entertaining, Abrams cannot make movies that contain intellectual depth.
Mostly I was talking about the people who've come down hard on this movie virtually since it was first announced, without ever even seeing the very first trailer. The name "Abrams" just seems to stir some people in an unpleasant fashion; I wonder if it has to do with Lost, which I've never seen. (I don't blame him for Revolution, which I have seen - it's clear from interviews that that show is almost entirely Eric Kripke's fault.)
The design of the Vengeance is - interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it; I do have to remember that the Galaxy-class took some time to grow on me. I suppose it'll all depend on how it looks in action, much like the newest Enterprise design (I thought it was too bulbous at first, but it's well-designed for big-screen action).
The only way Into Darkness is going to disappoint me, however, is if it turns out that "John Harrison" is in fact Khan Noonien Singh - I thought that would be a horribly stupid plot point when the rumors first started, and I still think so today. I'm open to almost any other possibility.
The design of the Vengeance is - interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it; I do have to remember that the Galaxy-class took some time to grow on me. I suppose it'll all depend on how it looks in action
Well I've heard speculation that the picture isn't the finished version. So it may look better in the film.
Mostly I was talking about the people who've come down hard on this movie virtually since it was first announced, without ever even seeing the very first trailer. The name "Abrams" just seems to stir some people in an unpleasant fashion; I wonder if it has to do with Lost, which I've never seen. (I don't blame him for Revolution, which I have seen - it's clear from interviews that that show is almost entirely Eric Kripke's fault.)
The design of the Vengeance is - interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it; I do have to remember that the Galaxy-class took some time to grow on me. I suppose it'll all depend on how it looks in action, much like the newest Enterprise design (I thought it was too bulbous at first, but it's well-designed for big-screen action).
The only way Into Darkness is going to disappoint me, however, is if it turns out that "John Harrison" is in fact Khan Noonien Singh - I thought that would be a horribly stupid plot point when the rumors first started, and I still think so today. I'm open to almost any other possibility.
Nah I don't think the hate started with Lost, as that was an original series. Star Trek 2009 on the other hand was a VERY different reboot of a series that many took and take seriously...
So they're probably just using Lost as a scapegoat to fuel their arguments, having barely given it any thought before (the average person I mean; no doubt some have personally seen it).
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
"Star Trek: the Motion Picture", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "Star Trek: 2009", and "Star Trek: Into Darkness" had massive enemy ships. Another interesting reoccurring plot device is 'revenge'.
One of the reasons why "Star Trek" was on the decline was due to recycled story elements. Regardless about how they redress the franchise, the overall problems that are plaguing "Star Trek" still remain. Its rather sad.
According to a few early released reviews, the movie is a mix bag of excitement and missed opportunities. "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is begin described as fun; however, the movie also contains moments that leave you angry.
*shrugs*
We will have to wait and see.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" may have been boring to some, but it was a work of pure science-fiction. I do not believe Abrams can make a "Star trek" movie, which mirrors movies similar to "2001 Space odyssey", "The Time Machine (1960s)", and "The Black Hole". Even though his movies are entertaining, Abrams cannot make movies that contain intellectual depth.
In that case, Star Trek II through XI are in the same category as Trek XII by your logic.
However, I do like the Vengeance, it fits nicely into the new Universe. You forgot First Contact and Insurrection had massive enemy ships. I mean First Contact's massive enemy ship was in the opening scenes of the movie. The Voyage Home's Probe and The Search for Spock's Excelsior could also count as a massive enemy ship from the character's view.
Re-imagining Trek was the studio's idea, not Abrams, he just provided the details.
You forgot First Contact and Insurrection had massive enemy ships. I mean First Contact's massive enemy ship was in the opening scenes of the movie. The Voyage Home's Probe and The Search for Spock's Excelsior could also count as a massive enemy ship from the character's view.
For that matter, TMP. While V'ger itself wasn't very big, it had surrounded itself with an energy field that was about a quarter the size of our solar system, and from the "cruising past stuff on the way in" views, the superstructure it had constructed must have compared favorably to a medium-small planet...
I love laughing at all the arm chair starship designers criticizing this ship.
Hey, how many of you actually work in the design field in any capacity?
How many of you keyboard warriors actually work for a movie studio?
Didn't think so.
And you folks wonder why the word at large laughs at Trek fans.
I am a professional Graphic Designer, and have done work for both movies, and games. (One of the latter due out this fall) And I can tell you, that's not the most creative ship ever.
However, I do like the Vengeance, it fits nicely into the new Universe. You forgot First Contact and Insurrection had massive enemy ships. I mean First Contact's massive enemy ship was in the opening scenes of the movie. The Voyage Home's Probe and The Search for Spock's Excelsior could also count as a massive enemy ship from the character's view.
Re-imagining Trek was the studio's idea, not Abrams, he just provided the details.
I don't mind massive enemy ships. I just find the Naradaprise kind of lazy.
With what you've said in this thread, I think he knew you did work with design, and therefore knew what you were talking about
But there were many who do not as well, which he was aiming that post towards
No, I think kneelift is someone who thought they could undercut everyone's opinions by questioning people's occupations, which is an attitude I find highly distasteful.
- Someone might not be a chef (or even know how to cook) but they would still know when they get served a plate of poorly cooked food...
- Someone might not be able to drive, but they would still know when the car they are in is being driven unsafely...
- Someone might not be a professional photographer, but they would still know when they are looking at a badly composed photo...
For someone to imply that because someone does not work in a very specific field, that they have no right to an opinion on a subject (other than praising whatever is dished up) is highly distasteful, IMHO
Comments
There are a lot of knee-jerk anti-Abrams people on the one side. On the other hand, there are a lot of people on the other side who act like any criticism whatsoever of this new movie somehow means you're not a 'real' Star Trek fan (you're violating IDIC! or whatever...)
Being a fan of something doesn't mean that when the producers of said thing hand you a plate of steaming excrement you eat it up with a smile.
The movie has already opened in several parts of the world, as much as you want to tell people to see it before they attack it, I'll tell you, without spoiling anything...
...see it before you defend it. There's a significant plot twist that a lot of people aren't going to like, and even more people are going to hate the ending.
I see you care about consistency, whether it's in plot or ship aesthetics. It's your view, and I respect that.
For my view, no matter what the consistency or design (ship, plot or otherwise), I consider it all on it's own merits. Even if something doesn't agree with me, I don't let it ruin my enjoyment. For example, if I did consider the JJEnterprise OR the Vengeance 'ugly', I STILL wouldn't let them ruin my enjoyment of the ships themselves.
For the record, I think both look good in their own ways, but that's my opinion.
My view is just different that way
I've seen much of ST that came before it, and they never influenced my view, before or after I saw the film. JJTrek is different, MUCH different than Prime Trek, but I understood that and loved it regardless.
Even if I didn't, I wouldn't consider it awful just because it exists, unlike some of the more extreme opinions... true it's their opinions, but the more extreme ones just seem stupid imo.
Edit: thought he meant JJStarTrek, not Into Darkness.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I'm not talking about the first film. I'm talking about 'Into Darkness'. See it before you defend it. I thought the first one was a mixed bag. The casting was really good. There were some plot contrivances to get those characters together on one ship with Kirk in command, but that was okay. Some of the characters (Kirk in particular) were a little bit of a caricature that I didn't like. But I thought it was an okay setup since they were pressing the reboot button.
As I said, I don't want to ruin the new one for anybody with spoilers, but the surface complaints about ship design and the like that you're getting now are going to be nothing compared to the controversy there's going to be once people in the U.S. have seen the film.
My own opinion? The first JJ Trek is sort of like Generations. Decent movie, succeeds in 'passing the torch' to a new status quo. This new one is going to go down as the next Nemesis (which you'll see it has a lot in common with). But no, 'Into Darkness' is not as bad as Star Trek V.
Compared to the bottom of the engineering hull, the interior of the saucer is positively flowing
I can't judge the functionality, as it could be absolutely anything, I'm just saying that the aesthetics of the ship aren't consistent, and it looks miss-matched and ungainly...
But I'll tell you this: as I said to marcusdkane, my view of things is very... unusual. Anything from 'mildly bad' to 'epic', I like the same as if it's the best thing out there, for each individual movie (or any entertainment). Sorta off like having 'the wonder of a child' on each viewing. I don't consider that a bad thing, because I can still analyze the movie in thought, consider which ones I like more or less on subsequent viewings, but still retain much of the initial like.
And I say this from more than 10 years of movie watching. Into Darkness probably won't change that.
Whether the plot is cliche, original, or done a thousand times... I wouldn't care :P I view them all the same, and so far there are very few things that rubbed me the wrong way, and few films that I actually didn't like. And the ones I didn't like, that were truly bad for me = 'The Last Airbender' or 'Dragonball: Evolution'. And in my opinion, even Star Trek V or Nemesis weren't that bad.
But even if I didn't like them, I wound't let that ruin my enjoyment of watching them again. I probably wouldn't watch them often, but still.
...Okay, got a bit off track there. And while I am defending it, I'm doing so because of those trashing it before they've even seen it. Which I think is a 'stupid' extreme reaction, really.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I'm happy to reserve judgement on the plot etc until I see the film (which will probably be a few years, as I have no intention of paying to watch it on the Big Screen or by a purchased DVD) and I have no doubt that the Vengeance is going to kick some serious TRIBBLE onscreen. I think it safest to compare the Vengeance to a Lego suppository... No matter how it's used, someone's getting hurt :eek:
PS For the record, I rather enjoyed the design of the JJEnterprise :cool:
Which I'll agree would be mildly odd, because that's just plain unusual :P But I wouldn't let that unusual oddity stop me from considering it lol
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I see where you're coming from, and how that would look ugly, but I can't quite agree
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
That's fair enough, it would be pretty counter-productive though, and probably wouldn't be winning any design awards, and that's what I was meaning with regard the look of the Vengeance... As someone who does design work, how well something balances aesthetically is very key to how I view things
Because as I've found out long ago, reviews from either source aren't the end-all argument about a film/video game's entertainment value to you. That's up the the individual imo
And besides, the film hasn't even come out everywhere just yet... not to mention immediate first reactions can often change. Some didn't like the Galaxy when it first came out on TNG, but have since come to love it
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Wow. Thats the name of my ship line ingame!:eek:
Hey, how many of you actually work in the design field in any capacity?
How many of you keyboard warriors actually work for a movie studio?
Didn't think so.
And you folks wonder why the word at large laughs at Trek fans.
One of the reasons why "Star Trek" was on the decline was due to recycled story elements. Regardless about how they redress the franchise, the overall problems that are plaguing "Star Trek" still remain. Its rather sad.
According to a few early released reviews, the movie is a mix bag of excitement and missed opportunities. "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is begin described as fun; however, the movie also contains moments that leave you angry.
*shrugs*
We will have to wait and see.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" may have been boring to some, but it was a work of pure science-fiction. I do not believe Abrams can make a "Star trek" movie, which mirrors movies similar to "2001 Space odyssey", "The Time Machine (1960s)", and "The Black Hole". Even though his movies are entertaining, Abrams cannot make movies that contain intellectual depth.
Want to tell us what you do, before getting on your high-horse?
But there were many who do not as well, which he was aiming that post towards
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
The design of the Vengeance is - interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it; I do have to remember that the Galaxy-class took some time to grow on me. I suppose it'll all depend on how it looks in action, much like the newest Enterprise design (I thought it was too bulbous at first, but it's well-designed for big-screen action).
The only way Into Darkness is going to disappoint me, however, is if it turns out that "John Harrison" is in fact Khan Noonien Singh - I thought that would be a horribly stupid plot point when the rumors first started, and I still think so today. I'm open to almost any other possibility.
Well I've heard speculation that the picture isn't the finished version. So it may look better in the film.
So they're probably just using Lost as a scapegoat to fuel their arguments, having barely given it any thought before (the average person I mean; no doubt some have personally seen it).
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I echo this sentiment!
Interested in Role Playing? Join the 12th Fleet Science division!
Just because a ship doesn't look like something excreted it like all the Next Gen ships do doesn't make it ugly.
In that case, Star Trek II through XI are in the same category as Trek XII by your logic.
However, I do like the Vengeance, it fits nicely into the new Universe. You forgot First Contact and Insurrection had massive enemy ships. I mean First Contact's massive enemy ship was in the opening scenes of the movie. The Voyage Home's Probe and The Search for Spock's Excelsior could also count as a massive enemy ship from the character's view.
Re-imagining Trek was the studio's idea, not Abrams, he just provided the details.
I am a professional Graphic Designer, and have done work for both movies, and games. (One of the latter due out this fall) And I can tell you, that's not the most creative ship ever.
I don't mind massive enemy ships. I just find the Naradaprise kind of lazy.
- Someone might not be a chef (or even know how to cook) but they would still know when they get served a plate of poorly cooked food...
- Someone might not be able to drive, but they would still know when the car they are in is being driven unsafely...
- Someone might not be a professional photographer, but they would still know when they are looking at a badly composed photo...
For someone to imply that because someone does not work in a very specific field, that they have no right to an opinion on a subject (other than praising whatever is dished up) is highly distasteful, IMHO