ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

2009 Enterprise

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 01 2010, 5:31 am

Vger, as an engineer, let me tell you, a machine, a ship, an airplane. They have personality. They have the souls and characteristics of their designers same as paintings and sculptures reveal the personality, style, and moods of their artists. The constitution very much had a personality, even if it was just the personality of Matt Jeffries.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 01 2010, 6:01 am

Got called away, so I need to finish my thought. A lot of effort went into the new movie to find actors who were similar to the classic cast in either looks or characteristics and personality. Back in the 60s, a lot of effort went into the ship's inward and outward appearance, and once again, as an engineer, I can say Jeffries was ahead of his time, even more ahead than Mike Okuda in many ways. If so much effort was extended into the cast, why not their chariot?

As for the sets, the bridge was amazing, by far the best and most fururistic but engineering was a travesty. It was filmed in a brewery and looked like it. Jeffries understood how a realistic engine room works, the new designer clearly didn't. But hey, any engine that produces a good brew for exhaust works for me, lol.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 01 2010, 7:29 am

Matthias,

I don't disagree that inanimate objects can carry a very strong meaning for some people. But, at the end of the day, they do not BY DEFINITION have souls or personalities. You may FEEL that way (and, I suppose perception CAN be a reality), but it is simply that...a feeling.

It's something Kirk knew to be true too. No matter how much he loved "his ship," he knew that his ship was, at the end of the day, simply an object. If the ship needed to be sacrificed, even to save one life, it was a worthy trade.

I think the IDEA that the Enterprise represents (human advancement, a "melting pot" of cultures and ideals, etc.) is VASTLY more important than the physical object itself.

Therefore, my argument is that the physical make up of the Enterprise is really NOT that important. It is more about the idea that she represents. As long as the Enterprise doesn't look like an Imperial Star Destroyer and as long as she encapsulates those ideals...I'm not going to get a redass about it.

It's not something that would detract from my enjoyment of a story. I never liked the design of the Enterprise D...but it wasn't something that weighed on my shoulders during the 7-year TNG run!

In fact, I was REALLY disappointed in the design of the Enterprise '09...both inside and out, but it doesn't weigh into my appreciation for the film much at all. The "size" of the ship is the LAST thing that would bother me, that's for sure.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

AdmiralArcher33

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 150

Report this Nov. 01 2010, 2:00 pm

I agree with MR. Alot of work went into making the original Enterprise the way it was and JJ Abrams completely destroyed that hard work. You make a very good arguement Vger there is no denying it, but for many fans, the Enterprise is the heart and soul of the show, it is what binds the crew into that hardworking machine of exploration.

They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 4:58 am

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 01 2010, 2:00 pm

I agree with MR. Alot of work went into making the original Enterprise the way it was and JJ Abrams completely destroyed that hard work. You make a very good arguement Vger there is no denying it, but for many fans, the Enterprise is the heart and soul of the show, it is what binds the crew into that hardworking machine of exploration.


But is it the SHAPE of the Enterprise, or the IDEA of the Enterprise that is important???

I'd argue strongly that if you are caught up in the technical design details of the ship moreso than the idea of what she represents...then you have lost prespective on what the Enterprise is REALLY supposed to be all about.

JJ Abrams didn't do anything, and he certainly didn't destroy anyone's "hard work." That's ridiculous. He re-designed the ship. It's no different than what they did for TMP or for TNG. I quote Kirk: "A ship is a ship" and this comes from a man who LOVED his ship...

So, I'd again argue that if people are going to get UPSET about the size or design of the new Enterprise, they need to check their priorities. I didn't like the size or design of the new Enterprise AT ALL. Didn't like the bridge design. Certainly don't like the Budweiser Engine Room...but it doesn't mean "JJ Abrams RUINED EVERYTHING" or that the movie was bad. That's a completely over-the-top reaction to something that DOESN'T MATTER.

Nobody cares that Chris Pine has blue eyes and is taller than Spock (well...I take that back...I'm sure there are "fans" who have a problem with that fact too), so why should we care that the Enterprise looks a little different? If you polled most movie goers (not anal Star Trek fans), they probably wouldn't know the difference. And, since the movie was made to open Star Trek up to a more broad audience and not JUST "the fans," I think they accomplished exactly what they set out to do.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 11:48 am

They accomplished what they set out to do but that doesn't mean their priorities were out of focus. The 1701 needed a major overhaul since what seemed fururistic in the 60s is now old tech. But a new vision doesn't have to be so radically different. Look at the 2 Galacticas, very different but very much the same ship. Besides, if the new movie were to stand alone and act like it was a complete redo like galactica was, I could slow them more creative license but since this universe only branched off 20 years earlier, it needed to be more true to the original. For this reason, I would be more forgiving if not for the time travel/alternate universe slant.

AdmiralArcher33

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 150

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 1:23 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 02 2010, 11:48 am

They accomplished what they set out to do but that doesn't mean their priorities were out of focus. The 1701 needed a major overhaul since what seemed fururistic in the 60s is now old tech. But a new vision doesn't have to be so radically different. Look at the 2 Galacticas, very different but very much the same ship. Besides, if the new movie were to stand alone and act like it was a complete redo like galactica was, I could slow them more creative license but since this universe only branched off 20 years earlier, it needed to be more true to the original. For this reason, I would be more forgiving if not for the time travel/alternate universe slant.
I very much agree. The problem is that the work that Roddenbury put into TOS was to build up the fanbase, granted the new movie did a good job to appeal to a broad audience but the people that have been fans of Trek since they were old enough to understand the show hated it because of all the changes made to it.

They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 5:21 pm

Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Nov. 02 2010, 1:23 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 02 2010, 11:48 am

They accomplished what they set out to do but that doesn't mean their priorities were out of focus. The 1701 needed a major overhaul since what seemed fururistic in the 60s is now old tech. But a new vision doesn't have to be so radically different. Look at the 2 Galacticas, very different but very much the same ship. Besides, if the new movie were to stand alone and act like it was a complete redo like galactica was, I could slow them more creative license but since this universe only branched off 20 years earlier, it needed to be more true to the original. For this reason, I would be more forgiving if not for the time travel/alternate universe slant.
I very much agree. The problem is that the work that Roddenbury put into TOS was to build up the fanbase, granted the new movie did a good job to appeal to a broad audience but the people that have been fans of Trek since they were old enough to understand the show hated it because of all the changes made to it.


REALLY???

ORLY????

I'm an original series Trek fan all the way, dawg. My boyhood idol was James T. Kirk. My current idol is James T. Kirk. I've been watching since the mid-70's when the re-runs really started to take off.

I don't hate the movie. I don't view it as an affront to Roddenberry's work. I'm not insulted by a single element of the film. In fact, I view it as a perfectly successful 21st century version of what Roddenberry put together 45 years ago.

Nearly half a century has gone by. I for one am very open to change and evolution. In the end, that's part of what Star Trek demonstrated. It's a shame some fans don't get it.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 1:49 am

I agree with MR. Alot of work went into making the original Enterprise the way it was and JJ Abrams completely destroyed that hard work.


Very interesting conclusion considering the original Enterprise is still unchanged.  Just as the past episodes and installments are untouched and will continue to be touched.


No previous episodes, films, characters or starships were harmed during the making of this film.


You make a very good arguement Vger there is no denying it, but for many fans, the Enterprise is the heart and soul of the show, it is what binds the crew into that hardworking machine of exploration.


Then they shouldn't have a problem no matter what it looks like.

jamesspock1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 461

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 10:15 am

The original Enterprise was considered a charactor of sort, Kirk used to call (SHE) one of his lines was (I gives, she takes) when the Enterprise met with known alians, she would be reconized by most, from her missions and exploits.

This new enterprise 2009 is so changed it would make the orginal Enterprise look minuscule in comparision which makes totaly stupid, plus the insides look like no one had any idea what a Starship should look like. Engines working on beer who would of thought, I guess that how good we have become with tecknologies.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum