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
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
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
-
Quote:
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.
You can forget it. This movie is supposed to impress a new generation of kids as well.
Quote:
The nacelles look like that planet-eater from an episode in the original series.
The what? Nobody today knows what you are talking about except the most hardcore TOS fans. I am not one of them.
Quote:
The texture of the fabric of the crew's uniforms is wrong. The lighting is wrong. The glass panels and viewscreens are wrong.
But it looks better that way. 'Nuff said.
Quote:
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.
Iconic, yes, and silly in the eyes of most people today, including myself - and I am a lifelong Trekker from the days of TNG.
I'm sorry to break the illusion. I understand and respect your nostalgia. But this movie should appeal to a new generation of fresh eyes!
-
I dont think you understand what he is talking about when it comes to the asthetics. And he is not talking from the position of just a trekker. The white bright interior is not astheticly pleasing for any reason. That much shiny bright white look seems way too campy. And that is precisely what JJ Abram is claiming to be trying to move away from. Campy doesn't equal cool. That amount of white creates the impression that they are trying to mimic "2001: A Space Odessy". 2001, a pure sci-fi classic is definitely not considered cool even by hardcore sci-fi buffs, its even nerdy by nerd standards.
Personally I get the glass walls and the shine and the holographic computer terminal interface. But the white color ruins it. See if they had done the glass walls and the shine and the holographic interface on a black decor or black metal decor, with less lighting, then it would have come off a bit more Minority Report looking. And that would be a kick ass.
A bit darker, a bit more serious. Instead the creators went with "nerdy factor 9 bright white".
I mean face it, Apple iStore IS "Nerd Factor 9".
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...
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
-
I couldn't have said it better myself.
(À moins de dire que cest épais sont des crisse de sautés de foqués d'mongols! ; )
Sorry mongols....
--------
"Dieu fort, Père paterne
Qui mua l'eau en vin,
Fais de mon cul lanterne
Pour luyre à mon voisin."
- Panurge, dans le Cinquième Livre de Françoys Rabelais
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?!
-
We all oohed and ahhed. I clearly remember seeing an early production photo of the Big E in drydock, all bathed in gold light and sporting no identification numbers at all.
I was blown away.
Of course, the reaction some are having to the new E is probably the one I'd have had in '79 IF the Ralph McQuarrie proposed design had been approved and unsed in ST TMP!
--------
"Dieu fort, Père paterne
Qui mua l'eau en vin,
Fais de mon cul lanterne
Pour luyre à mon voisin."
- Panurge, dans le Cinquième Livre de Françoys Rabelais
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.
-
Quote:
They are alienating the core fans who would keepthe franchise afloat.
Would this be the same core who didn't show up at all for the last movie, and who didn't have big enough numbers to keep Enterprise on the air?
--------
"Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk
-
Few reboots work.
I must have missed something. All major franchise reboots worked over the last few years! Batman did, 007 did...not everybody likes their new courses but they're making money...and that's everything that counts in Hollywood.
The fact is Shatner is Kirk. The Big E is the Big E from the 60s.
Says who? YOU? The Shat WAS Kirk from 1965 - 1994. His Kirk died on Veridian IV. And that original big E was destroyed in 1984. Remember?
I will stay home and watch an original program, not a retread from a hack.
Wise decision. I guess we'll need your seat for those 13-year-olds bringing their girlfriends...
-
Yeah right a 13 year old is going to see this movie. What world are you on right now? I have a kids. They don't even know what Star Trek is. Unless it has the latest music, the hotest stars, they DON'T CARE. Name one star a 13 year old wants to see in this movie. The only ones who will see this movie are the handful of devotees who need a Trek fix, just like Nemisis. Batman and Bond are not exactly reboots. If you were a fan of either and read the Batman comics or Bond books you would know the latest versions hold true to the original concepts that have been published. Plus Bond has been recast over the last near 50 years, so continuty differences have been expected and welcome.
The bottom line is remakes and reboots don't work. You want reboots that don't work? Bionic Woman, Starky and Hutch, Brady Bunch, the Honeymooners, Superman Returns, The Schumacher Batman movies, BSG (again killer ratings of 1.1 on Sci-Fi, Posieden, Planet of the Apes, The Stepford Wives, The Hitcher, Godzilla, ect... Only people without true imagination try to rework somebody else's idea. I don't see Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, African Queen or the Godfather being remade or rebooted.
I give credit to Rick Berman for expanding the Trek Universe, but he didn't rework it. And I will take a bad movie like Generations over a retooled original star trek any day.
Oh and by the way, this franchise needs me. Why? I am the one who puts the money in my 13 year old's pocket to see the POC in the first place.
You want to see it? Go dress up with all your friends in your Star trek costume, put on your phaser, grab your tribble and go get your fix you junkie.
-
"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."
Seriously, people...some of you really need to take William Shatner's SNL advice.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
NOT enough to sustain any film franchise beyond Resident Evil.
And most of the whiners will STILL pay to see the movie because...wait for it...they ARE hardcore fans.
For the love of God you people have to stop acting like TPTB have to kiss your collective asses. Because, quite frankly, there aren't enough of you "core" base types to warrant catering to because there aren't enough of you to justify the expense of the film.
Get over yourselves. You don't have 1/10th the pull you think you do.
--------
"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
-
"Get over yourselves. You don't have 1/10th the pull you think you do."
Very, very true. Those who claim they won't see this film are fooling no one, except maybe themselves. A lot of people claimed they were boycotting Casino Royale, but the film was a HUGE success, both financially and critically. The same will happen here, and those claiming it will bomb, just because they want it to, just look silly.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Good point Prometheus. No matter what ship was going to end up on the screen, the fancore will bitch all the way to the ticket counter and the concession stand (how many times??) to only bitch about it again and again after 8 viewings.... Just goes to show how true this quote from an elderly neighbor of mine (who recently passed away) used to say to me, "FOR CHRIST SAKE, IF THERE'S NOTHING WRONG THERE'S SOMETHING TO MATTER!!". Love that quote as it never gets old.
--------
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
-- John Wayne
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
--Dr. Leonard McCoy
"I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
-- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
"Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
- General Decker, Mars Attacks
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
- Q from Q Who
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"
-
Truly, well said.
This ship and her crew are an icon and a vision of the future we grew up with.
Most of you kids, only know TNG onward.
Someone was saying that the hardcore fans dont matter.
But in 1969, it was the hardcore fans who kept the show alive of a 3rd season. And it was the hardcore fans that kept Star Trek alive at all during the interum year between the end of the show and the release of the first movie. It was the hardcore fans who gave writers like DC Fontana and Stevenson couple their pay checks all the many years between Star Trek and the inception of The Next Generation. If it hadn't been for the hardcore fans holding picket sign in from of Paramount studios, their would be no Star Trek today. The old and aging hardcore fans deserve respect, and to be listened to. They know what Star Trek means. They were strange hippie nerds back then, but today they are people with families and some with grand kids, paying morgages and worrying about the economy. They are the one trying to decide whether to take their kids to see this movie, as a way to connect and bond with them by introducing their kids to set of stories that use to fascinate them when they were their kids age. But if this movie is nothing more than a celluloid hoax, then why bother.
JJ Abram should have recognized this and reconcidered the Kirk/ Uhura boob incident, and many other decisions along the way.
-
From a historical point of view, the old die-hard do deserve respect. Your memories live on and the original lives on, too, on DVD. But living in the past cannot sustain a media franchise.
This ship and her crew are an icon and a vision of the future we grew up with.
The future YOU grew up with. Exactly! But if you want to attract a new generation of fans, who need to go beyond those old restraints. If a 14-year-old should ever be tempted to care about Trek it needs far more than a 45-year-old TV show.
They are the one trying to decide whether to take their kids to see this movie, as a way to connect and bond with them by introducing their kids to set of stories that use to fascinate them when they were their kids age.
Kids and teens are much more independent today. They don't need their grandparents to take them to a blockbuster. If they like the trailer played before "Watchmen" or "Quantum of Solace" they will see it. If it was just a pilot of a 45-year-old TV show none of them would bother seeing it...not even if their nostalgic parents or grandparents would want to take them!
Blockbusters are not made for a hardcore fanbase. Spider-Man, Transformers or the new 007 movies are all based on old media franchises. They worked out as high budget movies because they appealed to a very very wide audience and not to group of narrow-minded, canon-absorbed die-hards.
The same will work for Trek...even if some 10,000 purists won't accept this as Star Trek, 10,000,000 people may want to see it. In this case, the needs of the many truly outweighs the needs of the few! Get over it!
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.
-
I don't know where you draw your information from but JJ has always been quite upfront that this was always intended as a REBOOT and REIMAGINING.
It was the fans who couldn't or didn't want to believe that such a thing could ever happen to the Star Trek legacy. I've been saying this for years now: prepare for a total reboot! It was never intended or advertised as a pilot episode for a 45 year old show! THESE WERE YOUR DELUSIONS! You've been lieing to your self and now you have to pay the price!
Now, there are some strong indications that it is more than just a reboot but it does HONOR canon through the introduction of an alternate reality created by Nero's tampering with time. In that way it is also a sequel because Nero and Nimoy-Spock start from a time firmly based in old-school Next Gen 24th century...
THAT is the only difference between this movie and a plain reboot à la Casino Royale...There is a connection for the old fans, a truely beautiful gift for the fans of the 45 year old legacy...
Anything else is REBOOT and that is the best thing that could have happened to the franchise...
Come to terms with your delusions. Either embrace the future's future or keep on living in the past. But don't accuse the people resurrecting a clinically dead franchise of lying, hoaxing or whatsoever...
-
Call me a literal person. I say what I mean, and I expect people to say what they mean too.
JJ Abrams, was very particular about not wanting to call this movie a Reboot or a Reimagining. He called it a Reinvigoration. Those are his words.
And he never said anything about it being an Alternate Reality Universe these characters are in. You derived that from what he said, and now that it is come true, you are happy. But I am a literal person. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. When I hear Reinvigorate, I dont hear Reboot or Reimagine or Alternate Reality.
It might as well have been a Casino Royale.
-
As far as I remember, he used all three terms synonymically...
Taking thre grand master of secrecy and twists literally is a delicate thing. He is "Mister Mystery Box"...you never know what to expect from him. That's what all his shows are about...Alias, Lost, Fringe...that's how his mind works. And I consider it much more interesting and complex than "Mister Play-It-Safe" Berman...
Language is a very tricky thing. In a postmodern sense, you can only guess what another person means by taking him literally.
Life is not as simple and simplistic as it used to be. And that's way JJ is the best man for the job right now. He is one of the few able of giving us both at the same time: nostalgic elements alongside an all-out reboot...
-
And that's exactly the problem: These people have told themselves that it was to be a new pilot. Just a remake of the original.
Now that it isn't (and was never going to be for a LOT of reasons) they are all crazy over it.
--------
"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
-
Quote:
Ryan Church has self-importantly decided that he is great enough to change a worldwide historical icon.
Church did what he was paid to do. Where the hell do you get off trying to chastize me for some preceived slight of people with "actual talent' and here you dump on this guy as though he were some fanboy that won a contest or in some other way forced his "crap" design on Paramount.
Hypocritical gasbag.
Quote:
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.
And your reaction proves you're a bold-faced fool. To actually expect a 40 year-old design to be faithfully recreated in a 2009 film. You may not like the design and that's fine, but you cement your perception as a basement dwelling whackaloon when you start dancing around the term "heresy."
If you really think Trek is about the control panel layout or whether or not the secondary hull of a starship tapers off too early you've utterly missed the point.
--------
"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
-
Exactly, He did what he was paid to do. He could care less personally. When fans design their little ships. I admit some I have seen do look really poor, But you can still see the care that they put into their work, cus they cared about what they are doing. Other fans make amazing art work and designs.
But thats just it isnt it. People dont take proud and care in their work anymore do they. I remember when those things meant something. They dont anymore.
I'm out, this just isn't my time anymore. Its new, is flashy, its got bells and whistles, so its in, its cool, and its the hype.
-
Quote:
He did what he was paid to do. He could care less personally.
And you know that he doesn't care because you don't like the design? He sure as shit has cared enough about it to put probably hundreds of hours into it and is proud enough of it to put his name to it.
What a pompous schmuck you are.
Quote:
I'm out, this just isn't my time anymore. Its new, is flashy, its got bells and whistles, so its in, its cool, and its the hype.
God yes because they aren't resurrecting every bit of lite brite control button and vinyl dining room chair it's just over.
Nimoy is fine with it. Fine enough to put on the ears one final time, praising it all the while. And the man knows quite a bit more about making Trek (and GOOD Trek at that) than you. You'd think that would give you SOME pause to reconsider. But no, everything simply has to be your way.
--------
"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
-
You know what, you are right, I mean it, you are right. I am a hysterical OLD gasbag.
You make references that fans aren't talented. Couldn't build the ship with sticks and such. Ryan Church has talent. This is a nice starship design, and would be good the have in the movie. But this isnt the Enterprise. And he didn't do the Enterprise justice with this design.
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
-
You know this is the second time I personally have found you trashing the creativity of the Star Trek Fan.
You really need to look again. And then shut you mouth. Many Star Trek Fan are actually very very good designers. And are very talented with 3D Studio software. They have created some really nice short videos of their CGI work. And I will tell you, their products look a hell of a lot better than this piece of crap that JJ Abrams creative team threw together.
Just because you dont have the talent to design a CGI Starship model, doesn't mean that no one else does.
And from the stuff I have seen. The fans have more talent than all of Hollywood put together.
-
Quote:
Many Star Trek Fan are actually very very good designers.
Yes.
Quote:
They have created some really nice short videos of their CGI work. And I will tell you, their products look a hell of a lot better than this piece of crap that JJ Abrams creative team threw together.
Some of them do look nice. I'm very fond of Gabe's work for one.
And everyone gets points for effort. But most of it looks like what it is: fanboy effort.
Quote:
Just because you dont have the talent to design a CGI Starship model, doesn't mean that no one else does.
Ohhh. Burn. No, I'm not into that sort of thing. But I don't need to know how it was done...or be able to do it myself to evaluate what's before my eyes. And what YOU'VE called better ISN'T. Sounds to me like baby has a touchy ego.
Quote:
And from the stuff I have seen. The fans have more talent than all of Hollywood put together.
Wow. You've seen THAT little???
Quote:
. And then shut you mouth
Bite me.
--------
"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.
-
I will tell you why, I am uptight. Its because this creative team lied. They lied, plane and simple.
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.
George Bush lied to us quite enough. We dont need to be lied to anymore. And especially, not lied to about such trivial things like the fact that this movie is a reboot. It is a REBOOT, as apposed to a reinvigorating.
If we had known it was a reboot from the beginning, then I would have said ok, they should have changed the design even more, and why both having Leonard Nemoy in the movie at all.
They created a false and deceptive advertising campaign, they lied plane and simple.
-
They kept the same basic shape - saucer, secondary hull, two nacelles.
When I hear the word reinvigorating, you're bound to get a bit of change. Imagine a guy getting "juiced up" at the gym. He's gonna look bigger and bad ass, not everyone's going to approve of it either. Sometimes, you have to take a leap of faith.
In essence, I'm sort of a purist, but I'm also progressive, and whatever change is needed while keeping the basic principles intact, I'm all for it.
-
We must have been living in two totally different universes for the last 3 years. I knew from day one this movie was a reboot, a totally different take on Trek intended for a new generation.
And that's not because I WANTED this to happen but because JJ and his team never said ANYTHING, ANYTHING different!
They told us they RESPECT AND HONOR CANON. That's why they give us an alternate timeline where things play out differently. They don't ignore what's been established but they set the new stuff in a new reality! What else could you have been expecting?
You and people like you are the liars here, falsly accusing JJ and Co. of deception!
You've been lying into your own pocket, wanting the fanbase to beliee that Star Trek won't go the same way as Batman, 007, BSG or any other major franchise.
I've been galavanting around the internet for almost three years now, telling people that everything indicated by JJ & Co. are the harbingers of a plain reboot, only tied to the old timeline by time travel!
People didn't believe me. They laughed at me although everything I've said since the end of ENT turned out the way I predicted it, even long before JJ's movie was announced.
Just because you are unable to distinguish between JJ's messages and what you've been reading into them, doesn't mean the man's a liar!
Wake up, man...It has always been supposed to be that way. Nothing else has ever been implied!
-
Sorry, I'm just not buying this crap. When I hear "revigorate", I dont hear "reboot", or "reimagine".
I don't see why we need an alternate reality anyway. And Star Trek didnt go stale because it was the same over and over, it went downhill because of piss poor writing.
I am out, I am done with this garage, I dont need a new Trek, that features Captain Kirk, the boob grabbing horn dog. And this mess.
I am done with Bond too by the way. Daniel Craig is not Bond. I dont care it is his second outing as Bond. Bond is a spy, not a mercenary. Roger Moore said it was sad because this new Bond is what people want. I say its just this young desensitized generation that wants a mercenary Bond.
BSG, I like cus the creator was up front about it being a remake and a reimagining. He was very clear about that.
This new Batman is better than the alternate reality world Tim Burton gave is. When have you ever seen building that look like they come from the Alien movies. Nolan was again very upfront about his batman being a reboot, or reimagining.
JJ DID NOT say REBOOT, or REIMAGINE. But that is what he has done.
I am through with this. You know what was said by JJ. ANd he did not give indication that it was a REBOOT or and Alternate Universe Star TRek either.
You knew, but JJ didnt say that this was what he was making. He didnt.
-
You knew, but JJ didnt say that this was what he was making. He didnt.
Fascinating. Then I must be some kind of medium able to read his mind. I don't recall each and every interview by him or the other guys but I always had the overall impression, that this was reboot.
The only notions they openly rejected were REMAKE and PREQUEL! It isn't because it is not a story previously told and it was never intended to be a faithful pilot to a 45-year-old TV show.
I don't see why we need an alternate reality anyway. And Star Trek didnt go stale because it was the same over and over, it went downhill because of piss poor writing.
Because this alternate raelity is the only way to bring back these iconic characters and reinterprete them for a younger audience without doing completely away with everything that came before. That way, you can still imagine that Shatner's Kirk is out there somewhere, exploring an alternate universe. I'd feel much more comfortable with that notion than with an entirely indifferent reboot.
The other option would be just another spin-off with just another set of copied characters on just another starship, starbase or whereever...Could work, but not the way, a reboot works these days...
-
"I am done with Bond too by the way. Daniel Craig is not Bond. I dont care it is his second outing as Bond. Bond is a spy, not a mercenary. Roger Moore said it was sad because this new Bond is what people want. I say its just this young desensitized generation that wants a mercenary Bond."
Have you read the novels? Bond is not just a spy--he's an assassin. That what he does. That's why he has a "00" rating. Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond is far closer to Fleming's original incarnation than any of the actors have ever gotten.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with politely critiquing it here or on another forum, but to bash the design, and even the entire movie, based on one image of the new Enterprise is too much. I really dislike the TNG Enterprise, but it did look good on certain angles - not many, but a couple. heh Everything doesn't have to be either pwnsome or teh suck.
I also have to say that after a day of letting this new design sink in, I think the ship is great. I can't wait to see her in motion with the nacelles lit up. This is most certainly the best Enterprise design since TMP and most people I've shown it to really like it right away. It's just some of us fans that have to shake the original designs out of our brains to appreciate this new ship.
Hell, you know that if the internet was around in 1979 for the release of TMP that people would have been hating on the refit Enterprise design. They would have been freaking out that the nacelles weren't round and that the deflector dish wasn't exposed.
Anyway, this design is already growing on me a lot, even from this one image that doesn't even show the entire ship. I can't wait to see the preview.
--------
There once was a man named Scorned,
whose posts were more offensive than porn.
He posted one too many,
got kicked out on his fanny,
and all the while he had been warned.
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
-
Quote:
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.
Nope, they haven't! They have NEVER said ANYTHING like that.
Actually quite the opposite is the case. They've repeatedly stated that it is NOT a simple prequel. Actually they told us it is "neither a prequel nor a remake"!
It isn't prequel because it's set in an alternate timeline set up by the movie's plot!
And it isn't a remake because it's not based on any previously established movie or episode.
But it has ALWAYS been intended to be a REBOOT, REIMAGINING...seems that nobody was listening closely!
-
Seems I haven't been paying attention then. I am surprised at the kit-bashing, eh, the kids bashing this new mutation of the Enterprise. It's a gorgeous design. What's the problem? Does this violate canon? No it doesn't, and it isn't a reimagining or a reboot either. If people can't get that into their heads, then I don't know how to explain it in a way they'll understand. Maybe they should just do their homework, then they'll understand the concept of time travelling and how it has been affecting Star Trek time and time again.
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.
-
The thing is that we're experiencing our very own "Galaxy Quest" at the moment. These canonistas keep reminding me of that alien accusing the GQ crew of having "lied" to them and "cheated" them because those "historical documents" weren't real...
That accusation of "lieing and cheating" along with that incredibly pathetic notion of " JJ raping my childhood" is really amazing...never though grown-ups could be so pathetic...
But the bright side about is that none of that really matters. At worst the fandom will have once again exposed itself to ridicule.
In six months from now, every SciFi or action oriented 13-year-old will be watching Star Trek and so will most of the current naysayers because they won't be in control of their fanboyish curiosity despite of what they're saying at the moment.
..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
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
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.
-
Welcome to the fray, geepee16. I myself joined way back when I got angry at all the VOY bashers. Since then I have come to realise that it's meaningless to debate the things on and on. Well I cautiously look forward to the new movie. I don't care about the nitpickers here and on other websites. It don't matter. I think the style and tone of the movie is going to decide whether or not it fails, and whether I'm going to like it. There is no reason for me to criticize the gorgeous effects or the cool ship design; it seems to be really state-of-the-art anyway.
-
Quote:
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.
ROTFLMFAO - oh dear lord, you people give yourselves too much credit! You think the majority of people who see Trek movies actually give a shit about the minutiae some of you are moaning and groaning about? There's a handful of extremely verbose detractors. I'd be willing to bet that most people are going to wait to see if it's a decent movie.
--------
If you can't be who you are, why be anything at all?
~Charles Pierce
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.
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
-
You know, I used to hate all the arguments that TOS fans made against the "newer" trek and even against the prequel show, Enterprise. Now I see the same against this new movie. I have to admit, I agree with them. I'm all for prequel movies and I realize that we have to have new actors and actresses to play the parts we love, but I don't see any need to change things like bridge layout or ship design. I believe an upgrade should be only be done in direction and filming.
(2)
| 
