Oh yes, I have read a few Ian Fleming novels. Bond is an assassin, yes.
I get that. I get Bond take out an informant when he is done squeezing him for information. I get Bond's ruthlessness. From an examination of Bond. He is meant to have sociopathic inclinations, a result of his being an ophan and shuffled from foster home to foster home, this leaving him disconnected and a little indifferent to his humanity. I get that. Thats part of why British Intelligance recruited men like that. (In real life too.) They can disappear partially because they have felt invisible their whole lives. And if they go missing or end up dead, no one will miss them anyway. They are a disposible part of society. IE.: Sociopathic behavior. And this also feed some of Bonds resentment toward MI6, for preying an his disadvantages.
So with that being said, this new Bond however, seems more pychotic than latent sociopathic. I saw Casino Royale, andit is by far the best and most well write Bond movie I have ever seen. But the actor Daniel Craig's performance of Bond is way off. Daniel seems to be playing Bond as if he is having difficulty containing an insatiable urge to kill. The card game in the movie was great, but the whole time Daniel eyes read like he was having troulbe sitting still. I thought Daniel would suddenly loose character, loose his cool and leap across the table and attack the guy right then and there. Daniel just doesnt play the part well. His eyes say too much, they look like they are filled with rage and violence. Bond is a professional government assassin, disconnected, unpassionate, cold and taking his kill very objectively. IE soicopathic. Daniel looks more like an obsessed stalker. Like the guy who murdered poor Rebecca Schaeffer. I love the style and content of Casino Royale. I just hated Daniel Craig. I was more afraid of his Bond that the villian. I kept expecting them to find a copy of Catch in the Rye in his pocket.
That is the kind of pycho Bond takes down, not the kind of person he is. I felt the same way with Timothy Dalton's Bond. He too was more villian than hero.
On a historical note. During the Cold War, CIA, British Intelligence and the KBG, all recruited some men with a sociopathic, and even homicidal nature. When the Cold War ended, British Intelligence sent other agents to take these rogue agents out. CIA cut theirs loose, most of whom ended up working with and helped form AL Queda. KGB, cut theirs loose and most of them became Russian Mafia members or leaders, which is why they are so so dangerous, and deadly.
The more I look at this picture of the new Enterprise the more I love it. When you stand back and glance at it it really does have that classic look to it.
Ryan Church if you ever happen to grace this forum (which I doubt it. I wouldn't if I were you, especially with what I've read from some of the hard-core's here) I'd like to say, you don't need to defend yourself. You did what you and your creative team had to do, and you should be proud for undertaking such a bold and difficult task of redesigning the Enterprise. I know you are proud of this and I would be too. Any artist should be able to feel positively about their labor of love. I look forward to seeing this baby in action.
I love the saucer and the nacelles (even if they look a bit like rocket engines) but why does the front of the engineering section stick so far out?
Crazy.
--------
Visit My Blog
He's angry. You won't like him when he's angry.
When the source material has got it right, why would you change it?
Every single version of Star Trek has tried to re-invent the aesthetic of the show, when what made it cool was the original 60s look.
What is more of a challenge is to explain through the story WHY it looks the way it does with the minimalism, and primary colors and bold styling.
One line in the script could make a passing reference to an artistic and/or philosophical movement within military design that caught on and explains the look. EASY!
The whole reason the look of science fiction looks as it did from the 1920s through the 1960s was becaused the aesthetic drew upon artistic and philosophical movements: streamline, art-deco, pop art, etc.
The current look of the Enterprise which has been teased by Paramount and now designer Ryan Church seeks to throw a little cold water on is lame. The nacelles look like that planet-eater from an episode in the original series.
The texture of the fabric of the crew's uniforms is wrong. The lighting is wrong. The glass panels and viewscreens are wrong.
I'll go see it. It will be in the top 4 or 5 of the films I figure (beside Star Trek II, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek IV, Star Trek: First Contact, and Star Trek III) ... but JJ Abrams and Church and the whole team still put too much of their own stamp on the look.
The SOUNDS, the MUSIC, the minimalism and the special effects and colors are what made the original Star Trek so distinctive that it is now iconic.
- radii
http://www.galacticavariants.blogspot.com
The Enterprise lives to fly again.
That's all I care about.
WARNING:
Angry Hortas wrote A LOT of posts below...
And for the people that don't have time to read all these comments, here's a summary:
"How can they do that to Trek, they lack respect for the 40 years of history of our glorious franchise! It looks like shit, it's not Gene Rodenberry's vision, it's sacrosanct, lay off my altar! Bwahhhhh!!!"
Then, sometimes, the reply will be about giving a chance to the movie, that GR's vision was about humanity and characters, that the story will be more important than design choices. Some will talk about getting a life, it's a movie, get out of the basement (hence my reference to Hortas above. Also, they're fat.)
But in the end, is this really that important?
You guys really want to have an apoplexy attack over this?!? Pop out a nerve?
Cry in outrage...for a movie you're saying you won't go see? What the fuck are you doing here then? I don't like the newer Star Wars trilogy and you won't see me go berserk on SW forums. Others did, and I haven't the greatest respect for them either.
Or, maybe, just maybe you guys want to go see a sci-fi movie at the theater with a big bag of pop-corn, some M&M's and a regular 7-Up? (Thanks for the bucks, corporate guys...)
If so, I'll see you there. If not, you've made your point, over and over again, the same fucking one... and a lot of people are laughing at you!
And no matter what you think or will reply, it's justified, even fans think your laughing stock material...
--------
tupperfan.blogspot.com
The pivotal question is whether this movie is able to become a summer blockbuster or not box office-wise.
The question is not fidelity or accuracy to the LETTER. If it stays true to the SPIRIT, that would be appreciated. But let's face it: Trek needs a new start.
I want millions of teens to storm the theatres, taking their girlfriends and sibblings...they should be taking their parents, not the other way round!
This movie needs to be as far from a geekfest as it gets. The new Enterprise is a start. And if some die-hard canonist crybabies can't stand it? GOOD! Then there is hope for the franchise!
It looks fine. I'm really at a loss for words to counter those who hate it -- what are you people expecting?
If anything, the changes make the ship look more balanced -- it's the first Enterprise that doesn't look like it would tip over and fall forward if it ever landed.
It's good to hear that we're looking at it from a wierd angle. I thought the proportions were a little odd; now I know why.
To the "I hate it" people:
You're insane. There's nothing to hate about it. How many Enterprises have we seen? I mean there were like 3 different versions for TOS for crying out loud, and then the refit, then 1701-A, and of course B, C, D, E, and (ugh) NX. Ok? This is nothing new. Get over yourselves. As ships go, this one is pretty good. And for those of you who think that it has to match the structure of the TOS model perfectly, you really need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.
To the "It's awesome" people:
It definitely reflects some odd design choices. I do wonder how much of that is the angle of the shot and am looking forward to seeing it. I personally don't like the bulging front simply from an aesthetic standpoint. My favorite is till the Ent-A. But it's not bad. Not perfect, though.
Some of you people need to get a grip on reality. "There's only one big-E." "This is not the Enterprise." "It's an international icon."
To anybody who has a life, that picture above is the Enterprise. Does it look like the Millennium Falcon? NO. Does it look like a Buick? NO. Does it look like an ear of corn? NO. It looks like the frigging Enterprise! We can (and are) quibble about this or that detail, but that's a luxury we have as obsessive fans with nothing better to do than complain the dish is blue instead of a bronze satellite dish my neighbors had in their back yard in the eighties. Give. Me. A. Break.
So basically they've picked a crap shot to release as the first look at the new Enterprise. Well done to the PR people! :P
That said - the hissy fits are embarrasing! WTF was it like in '79 when the refit was unveiled?!
There will not be a sequel to this movie. They are alienating the core fans who would keepthe franchise afloat. Few reboots work. Even BSG isnt as big as some make it out to be. If it were it would be on NBC, not SciFi. But to be Abrams and say he is in igorating the franchise is a joke. It is 40 years old. It hasnt surived that long without doing things right. The fact is Shatner is Kirk. The Big E is the Big E from the 60s. No reimagined movie will change that. I just know after what I have read these past months, I dont plan to see it. I will stay home and watch an original program, not a retread from a hack. Peter Jackson and James Cameron this guy isnt.
Guys, reboot is something you do with your computer when it decides to have a shitfit again! But even then once the problem is sorted it starts back up and is just the same as when you turned it off. What we are talking about here is a total and complete change of everything that we love about a cultural icon of the 60's 70's and 80's. Some of us are old enough to have grown up with just the reruns of Star trek (I won't call it TOS, it's just Star Trek, only the follow on series had any other title extension) so to change that vision of the future is asking alot of people like us. I don't feel it is necessary to change the bridge or the ship or even the characters themselves. It was futuristic enough back then and still is iconic even now. I am looking forward to this movie however. Leonard Nimoy will bring to it a thread of hope that this film will not insult people like me by altering the Trek I know and have grown up with. I say this only because he has refused in the past to do previous Trek films out of principle (and cash I know) My fingers are crossed. JJ, please dont fool around with the Enterprise to much. She made little kids like me want to be astronauts and in the words of a famous Captain, "She is a beautiful Lady"
This ship looks nice, but it's not the Enterprise. The Enterprise is a worldwide historical icon. Ryan Church has self-importantly decided that he is great enough to change a worldwide historical icon.
The creative team of JJ Abrams, repeatedly assured fans that this film was not a reimagining or a reboot, but a reinvigorating of a legacy
The design of this ship confirms that these assurances were a bold -faced lie. JJ Abrams and his team have created a false and deceptive advertising campaign. But now that the veil of lies is lifting, fans are seeing what JJ Abram has really been doing with all that money. And it is not authentic Star Trek, it is a celluloid hoax, a farce.
Hmmmm...maybe he's just pissed that he's getting trashed by idiots for something he put a lot into. And getting trashed by people who couldn't put together a stick version of the ship, much less this.
I would be, too.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
People, lets wait for the release of the trailer tomorrow with Quantum of Solace (or online on Sunday) to see more of the ship before criticizing it. I, for one, want to see more before making an opinion on the redesign.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
Wow, I'm a big Trek fan, but this is beyond belief how people get so uptight about the smallest things. I initially cringed when I heard that Starbuck was going to be a woman, but I embraced the new BSG and can't wait for the finale. I cringed at the new Michael and KITT in Knight Rider, but I had fun watching the new episodes. I rolled my eyes when I heard yet another look at Batman was being made, but my $10 went happily into the near $1B pot that has accumulated to date. I scratched my head when they put in all new replacements for Sarah and John Connor in the new Terminator TV show, and now I look forward to my Mondays for my Terminator fix. Heck, I even liked the first few Bionic Woman episodes. Unfortunately, they lost me at Enterprise.
With all the damage that Berman and Braga have done to a multibillion dollar franchise, I for one embrace a completely new direction. Hell, I'm all in for a reboot if need be. So what if they changed the E around and turned the bridge into a Genius Bar on steroids? Better a new franchise than a dying one. The world needs a new hope.
So, for everyone else who thinks the secondary hull is out of proportion or the bridge is too bright or the new Kirk doesn't do dramatic pauses or Scotty now has a more realistic accent, then this clip is for you...
http://lads.myspace.com/videos/c.swf?m=35890497&t=1
And, yes it was tough to find the WHOLE DAMN CLIP.
It's childish behavior like this that makes me embarrassed to say I am a fan. Really. As much as I love Trek, I would dread working on this stuff in any professional capacity( I work in casting) because of the ridiculous, surly behavior of Trek fans.
Remember, for all us cannon junkies if this takes place in the TOS era there are many many MANY styles of ships we have never seen before. Not all the ships look the same, I mean even looking at the nacells how many different designs have we seen over the years within a certain era? Many. I am not going to let something like this bother me, I believe this part of the cannon and that is all that matters, I believe. Technicalities can always be explained away.
Anyone who is surprised by the reaction clearly hasn't been paying attention. I myself predicted exactly this sort of reaction to the redesign when Trek XI was first announced way back in 2006-07.
The issue once again isn't that the ship has been redesigned, but it's the fact that Abrams and the others have repeatedly stated that Trek XI is not a remimagining or a rebooting but a prequel to TOS. Therefore there has to be visual continuity with the original series because the spin-offs have already done this: TNG, DS9 and Enterprise have all given us the original TOS designs in their revisits to the TOS era. If they had come out from the beginning and said this was a reimagining, then I don't think the bitching would have been half as intense as it is now.
Plus you wouldn't have the fracturing of the fanbase among what appears to be generational lines, with older fans upset at the redrawing of history and newer fans not giving a shit and criticizing the older fans.
If Trek XI is in fact a bona fide prequel, then there must be something within the storyline to indicate that the new Enterprise, bridge, uniform, etc designs are the product of an altered timeline. Indeed, one of the scenes shown to the press the other day seems to support this. To avoid a groundswell of bad word of mouth -- and if you think this can't harm the movie, bear in mind that in a recent survey of "most anticipated films of 2009" Trek XI didn't even make the top 5 (Potter and Wolverine and Transformers II were named), and the effect of bad word of mouth on Nemesis 6-10 months before its release was devastating -- then what Abrams or others need to do is allow the leak of a plot detail indicating that this is the case.
You'll still have the anal-retentives complaining. Hell, I remember attending the premiere of First Contact and several guys in the audience attended with sketchpads because they weren't interested in the movie, just the design of the Enterprise-E. But I think the bad blood that is starting to spill over wouldn't be half as bad.
I don't believe this is overstating the case. Star Trek and Trekkies defined the whole notion of "Canon" as referencing a cohesive and interconnected fictional universe (before that the term was used to describe a collection of works). There are those who continually try to knock it down -- that's not new, as such efforts have been underway at least since Voyager broke Warp 10 if not from the day Encounter at Farpoint debuted -- but this is something that has become integrated with a subculture that has built up over more than 40 years ... it's not something that's going to be easily swept aside.
Al
I cant believe that people get upset at the position of the nacells. How can you stress over such mundane details and still live a normal life? You cant. Do we not remember the teaser trailer were is shows those massive nacells from the front, they rise well above the saucer.
I really feel sorry for these poor guys that have got to defend themselves amidst the raving, rabid lunacy of Star Trek fans. After having read some of the terrible things that many fans have said regarding the production team and their design values, without even having seen one iota of film footage, I'm just absolutely flabergasted so many are prepared to write this film off.
I tell you what, I'd hate to be involved in the production of this film as I know I'd be on the receiving end of a butt caning from so-called trekkers. Good grief I hope the production staff have tougher skin then I could ever have.
..they intentionally released this image only to be forced to defend the design by saying this is really a crappy image of the design and we should wait and see? This can't be the best representation of the ship they could have released. It's not like this is some photo of a UFO taken in the dead of night they have no control over; it's their design!
I'm guessing had they released a prefect shot of this design and fan reaction had been bad; they would have no way to cover their asses so to speak. "Sorry this is it,take it or leave it" would have had to be his response.
Like I posted else where, this isn't the design I would have gone with. I would say it's not really bad design, if it weren't for the fact that there's an iconic design they could have worked off and was no need to get overly "creative" with the new design
Quote:
They have fire prevention people with their eyes wide open trying to calm, quell, [etc.] ... I get the feeling this is because they are not as confident as they seem ... Despite their apparent confidence that this will appeal to a general audience, it seems they know we could do a lot of damage before the film is ever released.
I think this is less them being "unconfident" in their own project and more us seeing a new generation of filmakers at the helm of our franchise for the first time. Do you honestly think the old B&B regime would be internet savvy enough to follow boards like this and guage our opinions? Hell no. These guys are younger and more in touch with the mainstream audience. If you were this guy and it were your Enterprise getting pummelled by the few idiots on here who need the attention, you'd probably post a rebuttal too!
--------
-- Steve
"War does not determine who is right. Only who is left."
Hi all. I have been coming here to trekweb for ages and have gotten so angry at times that i thought about joining the fray. now that i have gotten my feet wet, i think i'll pull up a chair and say something. i'll start with this:
i don't think this ship designer guy would ever have bothered posting- regardless of fan reaction. that he did tells me that abrams' people felt the fan reaction and called this guy to do some relief pitching. they have fire prevention people with their eyes wide open trying to calm, quell, suppress, stifle, reject, address, what have you. i get the feeling this is because they are not as confident as they seem. the little nuggets they leak out to the media and fans seem to have more of a negative impact than a positive one be it this enterprise, kirk's drunken boob-squeeze scene, tattooed romulans (sound like a good name for a band) and even the whole premise of what they are doing. despite their apparent confidence that this will appeal to a general audience, it seems they know we could do a lot of damage before the film is ever released.
Like I said, I’ll wait to see how the film looks as a whole effort.
Good advice Rick. Maybe things'll die down a bit after the trailer and IF they release more E images from different angles.
--------
"...to boldly fly where no man has gone in space..." -- Patrick Stewart, SNL
(2)
| 
