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

2009 USS Enterprise

W. T. Riker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 440

Report this Dec. 01 2011, 11:53 am

Quote: rbren @ Sep. 07 2011, 5:25 pm

>

>The JJ Abrams 1701 is lacking and wimpy. The movie was fun and did bring back the missing feeling of a great adventure but I was not happy with the art direction. Not to mention the Enterprise was built in San Fransisco as stated on the bridge plague not Iowa. The original concept by Gene R. was that it was assembled in space since it was never designed to fly in air or from the ground into space. How it got there was never explained in the movie and again another missed oportunity because the Enterprise is as much a character as Spock and Kirk something JJ clearly disregarded.

>The lens flares helped cover up the lack of design and color of the sets as well as the ships.

>The Original design became iconic because it was arraigned with familiar shapes and minimal lines. It wasn't a saucer or a rocket shape it was both with a shuttle bay and deflector dish. The recent "restoration" paint job on the original 11 ft model is an abomination. The original had no visable lines on the egineering hull, the engines or gridlines on the bottom of the saucer. There were only lightly penciled grid lines on the top of the saucer and some startegically placed weathering. The much debated and often wrong color scheme was NOT grey! It was a light blue/green tint. Some area's had darker green shading paint to help the illusion of scale. The TV models of the '60s could not work with today's HI-Def tech but failing to learn from them is a loss.

>


 


umm.. hello? the enterprise was awesome! stop comparing it to the original, which does not look that cool in the first place, i know, i've seen it in person, because


A) it is a reboot


B) it is an alternate timeline,


and


C) IT LOOKS AWESOME AS IT IS!


 


The universe can giggle all it wants, but it's not gettin' any of our bourbon!

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 01 2011, 9:02 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Dec. 01 2011, 11:47 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Nov. 30 2011, 8:21 pm

Quote: Rear Admiral Archer @ Sep. 07 2011, 5:36 pm

>

>

> Iowa? Seriously? At what point in TOS did it say that she was built ON Earth?

The dediication plaque on TOS says the ship was built in the San Fransico ship yards, which according to Rodenberry.......was ON EARTH.

You can choose to accept or deny that if you like, but never was it said that TOS era ships were built in space.

As for Iowa.........Neros actions could have lead to a different local for the ships construction.

It could have for whatever strange and remote reason. But that still doesn't excuse altering something so well establish in Trek canon. Just because is he in charge now of the Trek franchise, at least on the screen and can make changes like that with his alternate reality, does not mean he should.

If I wanted all my normal Vulcans to wear bears outside the Mirror Mirror reality, it would be acceptable under laws of canon, but more people would hate it than appreciate it.


I didnt like it either,but just like the examples in the other topic, its not an issue of "in story inconsistecies"


As to the film makers right to do as he wants.....I support his right to do what he feels, as long as there is a resaonable excuse for any changes made....and I'll praise and or condem him for doing so after evaluating the completed work


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 01 2011, 9:07 pm

Quote: W. T. Riker @ Dec. 01 2011, 11:53 am

>A) it is a reboot

>B) it is an alternate timeline,

>and

>C) IT LOOKS AWESOME AS IT IS!


A) it NOT really a reboot


a reboot does not have a "in story" connection to the older version of the Franchise.


B) it more like a altered timeline,


an alternate timeline suggest it pre-exsisted, an altered timeline is more of a re-write to history or a branching off effect, like altering the cource of a river by building a dame.


 


Photobucket

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Dec. 02 2011, 7:21 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Dec. 01 2011, 9:07 pm

Quote: W. T. Riker @ Dec. 01 2011, 11:53 am

>

>A) it is a reboot

>B) it is an alternate timeline,

>and

>C) IT LOOKS AWESOME AS IT IS!

A) it NOT really a reboot

a reboot does not have a "in story" connection to the older version of the Franchise.

B) it more like a altered timeline,

an alternate timeline suggest it pre-exsisted, an altered timeline is more of a re-write to history or a branching off effect, like altering the cource of a river by building a dame.

 

It is an Alternate Timeline playing the role of a reboot, that's whay it gets so dissected by us fans, almost three years later. An ambitious project undertaken by a successful (and rightfully so) filmmaker that had more good than bad to it.


Whatever opinions I have formed years and multiple view after, it made me clap and giggle like a schoolboy first time I saw it.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 02 2011, 2:12 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Dec. 02 2011, 7:21 am

>It is an Alternate Timeline playing the role of a reboot, that's whay it gets so dissected by us fans, almost three years later. An ambitious project undertaken by a successful (and rightfully so) filmmaker that had more good than bad to it.

>Whatever opinions I have formed years and multiple view after, it made me clap and giggle like a schoolboy first time I saw it.

>


Just because thats how fans see it doesnt mean thats consitent with how it was presented here and other times in trek.


This films claims it is branching off the original timeline, that time travel is the reason things are now different.


To me, that equals a "ALTERED"-timeline


"ALTERNATE"-timeline suggest it pre-exsisted with out the interferance of time travel.


But who cares, these terms are pretty interchangeable


 


Photobucket

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