I think it’s safe to run this now. Remember back when we were just catching glimpses of the JJ Enterprise (top)? I ran this revision Andy Probert sent me. To his eye, the movie ship was off balance, and he illustrated what he would do to correct that (bottom). The image created quite a stir, and I took it down. Fascinating.
25
Oct
09
And I wonder how he feels about the scale…
Balance is a good word. Not sure its on WikiPedia.:)
To me, the neck is too far back and the front of the nacelles are too bulbous.
Having said that, Andy’s new saucer does seem to fit the streamlined, organic look much better than the TMP saucer.
I agree with all your points.
I still don’t like the JJ Enterprise – even after five months that design doesn’t look any better. I allways asked me what was wrong with that ship?
Andy knew it. It was the TMP-saucer! It never fitted with the other parts of the ship (beside that ridiculious scale!). Andy’s changes give the JJ Enterprise a better look. Now the single parts of the ship fits together. Perhaps JJ and Co. should consider his changes for the next movie?
Yup. Been a few months now. Still don’t like it. Especially the nacelles…
Come on, the nacelles are what makes it the ‘uncircumcised-prize.’
Bleh to the movie and the ‘uncircumcised-prize’.
Well Andy is right. The latest incarnation of the Enterprise is off-balance but he changed the one thing I liked about the ship. LOL I also like the curved nacelle pylons and the nifty spot light banks on the hull. Over time, I have learned to live with the off-set neck and the engineering hull jutting forward like it does. The nacelles though… bleh. I think they make her look like a turkey ready for the roaster. I just can’t seem to get past them.
But it all really falls down to aesthetics and there is no right or wrong answers. I dislike the color pink but that doesn’t mean it is a bad color, just not my taste.
Call that ship anything you want, but to me it will NEVER be The Enterprise.
Nothing will ever compare to the Original. Matt’s design is The Grand Lady.
Agreed! Externally, or internally, that thing just doesn’t have the grace, elegance, simplicity or beauty of the original.
I agree! The original is the best. However, I think Phase II is planning to make changes of its own to the original design. Some of those changes may look strange, or at least new, to fans of “The Grand Lady!”
Phase II’s changes wont be so drastic, nor so ugly. Rather, they are aiming for a natural upgrade to fit between TOS and TMP.
)
Although their plans have not been without controversy (don’t mention the nacelle colour!
No kidding! I made severalpoints about this abomination on another Trek website… Jefferies got it right. He designed it from an actual aeronautical engineers viewpoint. Less exterior hull details means less chance for something out there to break thus making someone go out there to fix it. This ’ship’ is NOT the Enterprise. I know it’s been posted here before, but THIS is what the ‘new’ E should have been – http://deg3d.biz/
That is such an improvement. Although I’m not entirely sure what we’re looking at – is the saucer section reduced in diameter or stretched into a Enterprise E like ellipse?
I agree with Barrie, the positioning of the neck and pylons on the JJprise doesn’t do the design any favours.
LOL interesting Andiprovement.
I wouldn’t mind the Johnny (JJPrise) if the deflector didn’t stick out so much. But this design is starting to grow on me. But she can’t replaced the fondness over the original.
One real thing that stands out to me about the original Enterprise, it really has no bad angles. No matter which way you view her from, she’s a beauty. Not so with this latest version…all you have to do is pick up a copy of the Playmates toy and spend some time looking at it from the various angles…especially the 3/4 view from above and behind. It looks like the dorsal/neck, and engine pylons are all swept forward and is very unflattering. I also don’t understand why they decided to copy the spotlight ports around the bottom of the lower sensor array. They don’t even light up. And call me old fashioned, but dangit I miss
the red stripes on the nacelles and secondary hull. Don’t much care for the registration across the bottom of the secondary hull at all.
They did a fantastic job though with the cgi, and I still enjoyed the movie.
Jay…
Re: The original Enterprise. I agree 100%. Funny though, I remember an interview with ILM VFX supervisor Ken Ralston in Cinefantastique. He said the TMP Enterprise didn’t have a good angle on it (!).
Doug, wow! That’s surprising to hear that about the refit Enterprise. I always saw the refit as a design that keeps the elegant simplicity of the original ship but enhances it by adding just the right amount of visual tension and majesty. One of my favorite angles of both the orginal Enterprise and refit is the 3/4 rear view, just slightly below the secondary hull centerline. Where the original ship looks amazing from that point of view, the refit just knocks your socks off. In any case, truly timeless designs in my opinion.
well to be fair Ralston said there were only 2 good angles on the refit (I’d guess the engineering flyby and the 3/4 rear view overfly, since he used those alot.)
That he had idiotic taste is obvious; I think there are only a few bad angles on the refit (unfortunately, not having the spinning nacelle caps takes away one of my fave TOS views.)
I think Ralston was more upset over the weight of the model than the design, but either way, he should have let somebody else take the job considering how much he bitched about it.
Nilo Rodis told tne NY guys doing the TFF fx that you couldn’t shoot the refit in profile, that it had a good side and a bad side, like Garbo; but then again, you’re talking about a designer who gave us the Boba Fett flying iron and did a lot to wreck the look of the Trek universe with his SFS / TVH stuff (I like the BoP, but hate the rest passionately.)
I feel the same, not a bad angle on TOS E, eh. And I have spun her around every which way but loose in CG. And I myself love Slave 1. Brilliant odd-ball design, IMO. I love odd-ball though. Thus I built her for that reason.
LLP,
deg
I’ll keep my mouth shut, don’t want to incur the wrath of the Abrams group!
Seriously though, there are parts of the ship I like. The saucer and Deflector dish come to mind, the rest – meh.
“I’ll keep my mouth shut, don’t want to incur the wrath of the Abrams group!”
He speaks BLASPHEMY! Purge the heretic!!
Isn’t the internet fun?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that it looked a little off balance. By biggest concern was the placement of the neck. Too far back for my tastes. I think it throws the rest of the design off.
Wow, that’s actually an enormous improvement. The TMP saucer stuck onto an otherwise all-new(ish) design was obviously a mistake in retrospect and reeks of design-by-committee. Better to have gone all new that to have suck a few recognizable but out of place elements here and there. By giving the saucer a tweaked shape, it gives the whole design a life of its own. Leave it to Commodore Probert to cure a rainy day.
Title this entry “Balance of Error”.
I’ll say it again, and I don’t care who it annoys. There isn’t a single good line on the Abrams Enterprise. It should never have been called Enterprise.
God bless Andy for trying, but there is just no salvaging this piece of drek. The pylons look like they were put on backward, the secondary hull looks like it’s squashed, the connecting dorsal looks too large and I could go on for hours about the messy horror they called nacelles. Bryant said it best when he said, “….they make her look like a turkey ready for the roaster.”
Now with all of that said, Andy is about the only person who could have made that design work. He proves it just be redrawing the saucer and changing the balance.
Pardon me while I go take something for my blood pressure. ;->
Frank
Did you ever see Tobias Richter’s 3D art of the new ship? He actually makes it look quite stunning; you’d be surprised.
I haven’t seen that one. I’ll be honest, I haven’t exactly made a habit of looking for anything with the new ship. Maybe I’ll go looking for it just to see.
I’d suggest looking at her straight up from below, like that shot when she’s evading the Federation ships debris upon arriving to Vulcan: there she does a roll which shows the short curvey nacelle pylons and elongated main stardrive hull making for a really sleek shape.
I think the POVs on her in the movie were a bit strange: the extreme close-ups were fascinating, but the full body views were sort of “please don’t mind me”. Generally, Abrams seemed to want not to alienate newcomers with too many TMP-ish starship scenes, more Star Wars than Trek. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in Trek XII.
(Ralston’s opinions are understandable given how difficult a model to mount and light the Enterprise was, but the “good angles” thing is a bit ridiculous, specially when the ship is most impressive when the camera nearly scrapes the hull with a wide angle lens emphasizing its apparent size, something ILM never dared do)
Any news about that Technical Manual that was being done by an actual technical manuals shop?
Now that’s an interesting notion….
I like it when people dare to do crazy different things like Mr. Probert’s (and Ryan Church’s) designs. It may not work for everyone, but at least it gets people talking and thinking about what else they could do.
To be honest though, I never liked the Matt Jeffries design from that particular angle either… *shrug*
I really love all the elements of the new design, but as many have said (with various degrees of histrionics) the proportions could be better. They don’t… *quite* gel.
But, she has Kirk, Spock and McCoy riding inside her, and she can get them to the plot of the week. She’s Enterprise enough for me.
“But, she has Kirk, Spock and McCoy riding inside her, and she can get them to the plot of the week. She’s Enterprise enough for me.”
But that’s part of my problem. What I saw in that movie didn’t leave me with any hope that they could make something that I would want to watch over and over again as Star Trek. What I saw turned Trek into Starship Troopers. I hate to say it, but that’s what I saw.
It was a fine summer Sci-Fi action flick, but it wasn’t Trek to me, and thats where it left me cold. The idea that I would see more of these poorly scripted, badly acted dim shadows left me shaken and empty. I no longer knew these characters or the Star Fleet they were in.
I honestly would try to get past the ship, even if it does look like a plucked turkey. I mean, I had misgivings about Doug’s NX-01. How did we get from Archer’s Enterprise to April’s Enterprise? Handily, Doug had an explanation that fit the bill and even made plausible sense. I was satisfied with how it was handled.
Anyway, this is more of beating a dead horse, and we’ve all had enough of that. We can only hope for better next time. Andy and Doug would be good places to start.
Frank
Funny, I had the opposite reaction; I though the strength of the acting and characterizations more than made up for the design elements I wasn’t 100% behind.
Ah well, your mileage may vary and all that.
As I argued with people on trekmovie.com when this pic was first released, I think the balance was intentionally changed. The original Enterprise’s balance seems to have the secondary hull and neck supporting the saucer; like the saucer is sitting on top of it. However, in the new movie, it seems that the saucer is supporting the secondary hull, which is hanging off the bottom. Thinking about it that way, it makes a bit more sense for the saucer to be as big as it is, and for the secondary hull to be pushed forward a bit. It shares a bit of design lineage with the Kelvin, as the Kelvin’s saucer is obviously supporting it’s appendages, and the placement of the Enterprise’s secondary hull would be similar to the Kelvin’s warp engine hanging off the bottom.
I always felt the secondary hull of the movie Enterprise was too whimpy. It feels somewhat too squat vertically to me.
CarlG, I agree with they way you look at it. Trying new things happens, and if you look closely at just about anything, there will be elements, angles, etc. that don’t look good.
Jay, I would hate for people to look at me one element at a time. I’m okay as a whole, but please don’t look at my short waist, or height, for that matter. I could go on, but I’ll spare you the gorey details. I really didn’t know what to think of JJ’s ship when I first laid eyes on it, but it didn’t take long for me to appreciate the familiarity of the forms. Yes, Matt’s right about the neck placement, and the nacelles took some time to grow on me. But overall, she’s the new SOTL and that’s okay with me.
I still have my faves, which some of you would find blasphemous, but the NX is tops, with the E-E, TOS and TMP E in close running behind it. Time will tell how this new E and any that follow will hold up over the next 40 years…God willing, there will be a lot more Trek to come, and it will follow in the steps of the original for a new generation.
I don’t think any tweaking can save it.
It looks horribly out of balance compared to Jeffries TOS E.
Nacelles are cartoonishly bulgy, I can’t shake how they just STARE out you. LOL
The neck of course is is way too far back.
Just my opinion of course, it will never be a “she” to me if you know what I mean.
let’s face it : no matter what the new ship looked like, it was always going to be controversial among the fans. That includes the option of them using the original design as-is. I personally like the ship mostly, I like the proportions and the interrelation/positioning of the different components. I think the engines are a bit overcooked and the neck has some fussy curves and embellishments but these are minor design issues I can live with. But this is part of the territory – even the almost universally praised Ent-Refit had its detractors when the film came out, Andy and Doug have certainly taken flak for some of their designs (the Ent-D and the NX-01 certainly haven’t escaped their fair share of controversy and fan outrage) so you know, you’re just never going to please everyone.
I think that to bring the ship back into balance, the opposite must be done. Leave the saucer and change all the rest
I think Andy was right about what he said. The ship does look too advanced with a Motion picture saucer plopped on it.
Of all Star Trek ships this is one I really dislike. The nacelles are the worst! They look like a starship boob job that went too far. They are far too big in proportion to the rest of the ship and really hurt the design which is a shame. The colour scheme too looks too close to TMP and not TOS, it’s a shame they didn’t keep the colour scheme Church had in the original design. http://www.round2models.com/articles/church-interview.
Mr. Cawley, was this the design you saw before it was offically released?
Paul, I like that one a lot, too. It’s in my wallpaper rotate (like so many other great images from Doug and John…good thing I have it set to change every hour!).
Now that one would still have had some negative reactions, but it would have faired better. Especially if they had revealed the accepted version first! I think it’s a decent attempt and has some beautiful lines.
PS – I should mention that I didn’t see the first design until John Eaves had a post about Ryan’s art on June 24th with a link to his site. The first thing on his site is a large version of the early version pic. I was surprised at how beautiful it was, and the whole rendered image was breathtaking. That was my first impulse before looking for details.
Then I saw that the neck was still too far back….
Would love to see Andy’s revision from different angles.
Interesting. The saucer that Andy added looks more like Ryan Church’s original design than what the CG artists made. The concept art on Ryan’s website shows a ship with a saucer that’s not much different than what Andy did in his revision.
I liked Church’s more conceptual version much better than the final version that ended up on the film. As an update or “re-imagining” (a word I have grown to loathe) of the original, what I’ll refer to as “Church’s concept” for the sake of brevity got a “hmmmm, that’s interesting” reaction out of me. It seemed a lot more “put together” to me, balancing out those turkey leg engines, and not so much piecemeal and oddly proportioned. The final film version, as I intimated above, just strikes me as an illustration of too many people having a say in the final outcome: “Hey! I liked Star Trek The Motion Picture when I was a kid, so why don’t we just replace Ryan’s entire saucer with the one from the movie? It’ll be … umm, what’s the word the test marketing says people like? Retro? Yeah, retro!”
The funny thing is that I like Church’s original concept because I think it looks more retro. It kinda reminds me of something that would have been done if Trek had been done a decade earlier, when the big ’50s Sci-Fi movies were being done. I love some of those old Sci-Fi movies.
I totally respect Andy’s opinion, and pretty much worship his design asthetic and contribution to Star Trek, but I think this just goes to show that not much can be done to fix the new design. I just cringe when I see this view angle, not only because of how bad it looks, but because I can vividly recall the pure devastation I felt when I glimpsed it for the first time. It was, and is, sick joke in my opinion.
Those nacelles! the trombone’ish jutting forward of the secondary hull. The blatent frankensteinian attempt to sew the movie-era primary saucer onto the body of another spaceship. At best it’s the zombie-prise, and I just can’t accept it.
Of course, I must admit, it didn’t bother me as much in the movie, because the Enterprise was always in motion, frenetic *blurry* motion. And the approaching view looks pretty much just as you’d expect. It’s just when you get a good lingering profile view that the enormity of the crime is revealed.
Don’t even get me started on the Enterprise interior. A brewery and a water treatment plant?!?! Really. That’s simply layering insult upon injury!
Someday someone will need to create a bootleg version of Star Trek (2009) (ala “The Phantom Edit”) that replaces all shots with the original Enterprise. That would be glorious!
(First time poster) – Firstly Mr D, thanks for creating this blog, advising Mr Eaves to do the same, and give all of us a chance to get real creative insight in the work you and your colleages have done over the years. Coming here every few days is like having an advent calendar with 365 windows on it!
The Alt E – This is a dramatic improvement, – mainly because it finally divorces this ship from ANY of the Enterprises we know and love, including the illustrious 1701 from TOS. (And Phase II!)
I didn’t think it looked so bad in the movie, though a combination of motion blur and lens flares might’ve contributed toward that. I don’t think I’ll ever really like it, though. For me it’s not about it being different from the original 1701. I always expected them to redesign the Enterprise for the big screen, just as they had to for TMP, I just hoped it’d turn out better than this.
To be 100% fair, that’s a fisheye-lens shot that really screws up the proportions of the ship.
That said, I think the JJ ‘prise looks seriously good in profile (maybe even better than the Jefferies’ E) – http://ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/3-enterprises.jpg , but unspeakably awful, unbalanced, and generally ridiculous-looking from absolutely every other angle you can shoot it from. Which, as a movie starship, it has to be. Ugh.
It’s like Church spent months designing the ship from the side ortho, and then realized two weeks before deadline that it has to be seen in 3D.
i remember that Ken Ralston remark…lol
never agreed at all with it. the complexity of forms, the balance of negative space to them and the dominance/subdominance/recessive nature of both the klingon and TOS Ent. multiple shapes and how they connect, are still barely touched in most scifi ship designs since.
anyhow… thats what balance is further defined…. add in movement and directions vectors of curves or planes and you get what you get..lol
btw- yes, as THORTEN asked, is that a cylinder/ or oval or diamond, or what new primarly hull shape, since that would also define the balance…
the balance in this one view(illustration) is restored but as to all views? unknown…remember to some of us the ENT D looked like a duck from the rt/lrft side ortho, with the huge prim hull.
anyhow…
I can’t except the new Balloonaprise! It looks like you are viewing the ship through the reflection of a fun house mirror. And to be clear, not just at the angle in the photo! The nacelles are too bulbous at the front, they are also too far forward on the support pylons and too close together as seen from the top. The support pylons are ugly and shaped poorly. The secondary hull with the top forward peeled back hull is out of place since there is no were else on the ship that has that look. The only decent part is the saucer since it based on the TMP saucer! There are no RCS on ether the secondary hull or Nacelles, there are only the 6 phaser banks on the saucer, I hate the bridge window and the NCC hull numbers and I. D. are in dumb places, and the NCC-1701 on the fantail is in another type style then the rest and why not just put ‘Enterprise” THERE ANY WAY??? Amazingly Andy’s simple saucer fix works wonders, it’s much better then before. And then there the size thing, that’s it’s longer the 1701-E , yeah right sure! The new STAR TREK movie was fun, I laughed,ILM -great,like they always do, but people please it was not STAR TREK?? not the way it was envisioned by the great bird.
Doug thanks for sharing Andy’s amazing fix!
Paul F.
It’s an improvement. Still don’t like it though.
Sorry for going off-topic, but did you guys see that Klingon cartoon on Youtube? It’s pretty crazy:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/25/viral-video-leads-to-klingon-empire-website/
Awesome cartoon. Also, if you go to the link at the end http://www.tlhingan.org/ you’ll find a pretty good site.
Also, you’ll find, at the link CarlG posted, a truly hilarious parody cartoon called “Don’t deport me Scotty” as well as a link to http://breakthrough.tv/ which has a petition called “Every Human has Rights” which I urge you all to sign.
after seeing it in action in the film, i have to use a quote from ‘the voyage home’, “It is the Enterprise!”
I enjoyed the movie, for what it was: A popcorn sci-fi movie. As for the the ship ~sigh~ I’m sorry, it’s just not “my” Enterprise. Mr. Jefferies’ original and the refit will always be the queen of the spacelanes for me.
I think as a design study the JJPrise is okay, as the actual final design solution not so much. To me the proportions are a bit wonky, and I won’t even get into the scaling issues. At 2400 feet and change that makes this thing bigger than Andrew’s E-D.
The debate rages on.
Of course, the option does exist to not watch the new film or look at pictures of the new ship. Just ignore it if you don’t like it. Its not like there isn’t plenty of other Trek to watch.
The same option is available for ignoring blog responses that one doesn’t agree with as well, but then where would the fun be in that?
I’m a fan of the new movie, but I must admit I was disappointed when I saw the first pic of the new Enterprise. As a few folks have mentioned though, it’s not a flattering angle (and first impressions last!). However, the shot of it rising in front of Saturn, and the aft 3/4 angle in some of Tobias Richter’s wallpapers, look beautiful. That’s the big plus of the TMP Enterprise though, it looks great from any angle IMHO. I love Andy Probert’s work, but I’ve gotta say though he’s fixed the balance of the new ship with his mod, the saucer shape just doesn’t work for me (what shape is it?). It looks less like a classic Enterprise than before the mod.
A few folks have pointed out how good Ryan Church’s original concept for the JJ-prise looks, and I agree. The changes from orangey bussards, and the organic curves don’t really work for me though. That having been said, I always underscore my thoughts about the film and new look with the gratefulness that we actually do have some new (and commercially successful) Trek, even if it’s not necessarily to everyone’s taste.
I personally thought the new ship looked very Probert-esque the first time I saw the picture. It has a lot of similarities to early sketches of the Ent-D:
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/ART/TREK/Ent-1.jpg
Over here we see a forward biased deflector
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/ART/TREK/ENT_New.jpg
Very similar saucer profile, and the neck is certainly very much like Ryan Church’s version in the way it slopes far back along the eng hull. Move the nacelles up above the saucer and you’ve pretty much got the JJ Prise.
Having seen the movie now, the saucer as designed works perfectly well as part of the ship. Andy’s version is a bit too TNG-ish and doesn’t mate at all with the rest of the ship. IMAO.
I did really enjoy the new movie, but I have to agree with a lot of you that she’s not quite right. Balance, size, and even the details.
Internal:
I think one the the most prominant things Gene told the designers of the Galaxy Class Enterprise was he wanted things to be simple. Specifically the control panels (lcars), he didn’t want a lot of clutter and flashing lights. The new interfaces seem VERY overdone. Lastly, the shuttle bay seemed to have beams in the way and be very “busy” to be a flight deck… But it did add to the excited, frantic ambiance.
External:
I have to agree with just about everything posted in here, ha ha! I love the blue glow from the deflector dish, it pulls in the modern feel I get from watching the ships pop in and out of warp in TNG, DS9, and Voy. But that is about it…
Closing Thoughts:
I also love the touch of how instantaneous warp was. Gone.
Nope, still a no-go and then-some, IMO.
LLP,
deg
Simon
The JJprise looks Probert like because the final verion practically has a TMP refit saucer on it. So I don’t like the design, so what? it doesn’t mean I don’t like Ryan Churchs work or JJ Abrams work. Any art form is open to citicism.
I’m not talking about the style of the saucer’s detailing – you could equally say it has a Jeffries saucer on it, seeing Jeffries came up with the basic outline of the TMP enterprise. I’m talking about the fan reaction that the new ship is totally “wrong” and has no precedents in any Trek design. When its clear it draws on a lot of influences from throughout the canon.
Well, I think Andy suggested the revision of the ship based on that first pic that gave everyone the impression the balance was totally off. Only when I saw the ship from other angles I recognized that the basic locations and proportions of saucer vs. neck vs. engineering vs. nacelles have remained largely the same.
But I totally agree with Andy’s criticism that the curved shapes of the engineering hull and the nacelles of the new ship don’t work so well with his/Jefferies’ saucer, if I understand him correctly. The design aesthetics are a bit like someone had glued an inflated TMP saucer on a somewhat distorted Sovereign secondary hull.
“I’m talking about the fan reaction that the new ship is totally “wrong” and has no precedents in any Trek design. When its clear it draws on a lot of influences from throughout the canon.”
…such as from the future. I think most of the criticism is because the ship
1) with its sleek look is not really credible as a design that was built at about the same time as the TOS Enterprise, new timeline or not.
2) is not a truly distinctive design either, but just includes several elements of different eras as if the goal had been to build an average 23rd to 25th century Enterprise (only with spinning fans and moving fins for a change).
And while the VFX people were at redefining the whole look and feel, they couldn’t resist scaling up the *finished* 366m design…
of course, the timeline is fictional and the style of a given “era” are indeed subject to change on the basis of more important things like giving a film appropriate and interesting production design. Thank goodness they’re not beholden to the precious continuity anymore. Trek’s own mythos became its own worst enemy and I for one am glad they pretty much binned it and started over. As for the scale issues, well, I dislike the notion of scale being played with frivolously because you need a realistic foundation for a sci fi story to be believable, but hey, they lucked out because the design still works just fine.
Simon: I agree on both accounts assuming that it is a total reboot and was meant to be only loosely based on Roddenberry’s Trek. In this case the ship’s overall look is okay. Everyone is free to interpret the attempt to “save” as much as possible from various previous Enterprises as some sort of homage, while it does not strike a chord with me. And regarding the size issue, I would at least expect more windows and window rows in a 700+m ship, regardless of how many of them previous ships used to have.
Taking the idea of making it look like a Hotrod was the wrong way to go. It doesn’t respect the old continuity yet uses enough of it to create this design and have the two be compared. But in no way does it capture any of the thought processes that went into Starship design. The beauty of other Star Trek ships is that the designers saw these things as real. Star Trek is supposed to be our future so to that degree it’s supposed to make sense when we see them on screen.
This posting, and its comments, finally brought me to the threshold of ending my silence, and making me ask myself, “Why does this reboot bug me so much?”
Another recent re-boot, the Bond films, doesn’t bother me, but the Abramsverse does. Why?
A big issue, I think, is the volume and range of Trek. The stories span generations and centuries. When new stories, characters and vistas were felt needed, they were added, without wholesale erasure of previous, usually beloved stories, characters and vistas.
Bond, though, is by definition set against the modern world, and an “ever-changing world we live in…” James Bond should always be a worldly, ultra-competent late 30’s to early 50’s operative, a man of action, fighting foes of varying plausibility against a familiar, if jet-set-ish modern world. As that franchise continues, it almost requires a re-boot now and again, whether implicitly stated, or simply by de facto changes of what “modern” is. The World War II vet Bond, fighting communists circa 1960, of course is not contemporary.
Trek has no such concerns. It built its own universe over almost 40 years. It added new generations, new characters, new foes, and by this expansion, also addressed new concerns and contemporary quandries. Rebooting is not needed. New planets, empires and histories can fill the storytelling bill.
What bugs me the most is the thumb-nosing it gives what was done before, and ignoring the sweat and creative energy put into previous incarnations. Destroy cornerstone worlds and segments of in-universe history? Sure, who cares, right? Etc… I makes me appreciate all the more, the effort put into the DS9 tribble episode, or the last season of Enterprise.
Heck, with the Bond reboot, they actually went back to the original creator’s original work for inspiration!!! Startling concept.
Where was the affection and respect for what created before? The kind of affection I perceive in the Abramsverse is more little a toddler mugging a puppy or kitten.
Well, I could go on and on, but I felt a baseline explanation of feelings I’m sure are shared by many needed to be expressed.
Thanks for the soapbox.
Before you guys counterattack this man in defense of the Abramsverse, just remember that dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism!
Well said Eric, I completely agree.
Also seconded. If most Trek fans were like Eric and Weerd1 on both sides of the debate, the Internet would a much saner place.
Also if we can’t be critics then we aren’t an open society
Well, I guess I hold a dissenting opinion. The work of Matt Jefferies is iconic and will always be the standard. The TMP Enterprise remains my favorite of any Trek (or possibly fictional spaceship) design. However, as put off as I was by the original above picture, seeing the new Enterprise in the film completely changed my opinion. The Enterprise in the new film NEEDS to be in motion… and I love that idea. It connotes for me the idea that the ship is restless, like a horse trying to run free only at peace with itself or the universe when moving as fast as it can. I would also say I find the scene where the Enterprise rises out of Titan’s atmosphere to be stunning.
There are plenty of people who didn’t (and don’t) like the Enterprise-D. Yet, she carried Star Trek forward into the future, just like she needed to. I think this ship will do that as well. We as fans have a tendency (and please believe me, I am putting myself at the top of this list) to deify Trek. Classic Trek, though it loved to make you think, was entertainment first and foremost. The movie had a responsibility to revive a franchise in trouble, while maintaining as many elements to make it recognizably “Star Trek” as it could. Compare this movie to episodes like “Journey to Babel” or “The Doomsday Machine.” Primarily action, with some character underpinnings to make it more than just flash-bang. The new film is exactly that and captures the feeling of a classic episode more than any incarnation I have seen since. It has the right amount of cheese to make it TOS- without become parody. It has the right amount of bang to make it TOS, without becoming a simple action film. It has the right amount of character to make it TOS, without becoming a soap opera.
Survival means evolution. Would I have made this movie if I were in charge? No. However my movie wouldn’t have made ridiculous amounts of money and have the shout outs to old fans while making new ones all along. My movie would have been more TOS, and therefore attracted a cult audience. Their movie brought me back five times and made kids who would never have considered watching a 40 year old TV show want to see more- my TOS DVD’s have been having a workout from new viewers ever since the movie hit theaters.
I respect everyone’s right to choose between TOS and JJ Trek. To paraphrase Billy Joel, it’s still Star Trek to me. I choose both. Good news is the movie’s success means more Trek. How can that be bad?
My apologies if I offended anyone.
Also well said.
You had me right up until Billy Joel.
BURN HIM!
Syd, down on Billy Joel? Tut, tut! I have a very eclectic taste in music, and Billy Joel makes my list.
After all the billions of words said about the new Trek this past year, I welcome the opportunity to debate something else. 
By the way, Weed1, I say “well said”, also.
I just have long bitter memories of hearing “We didn’t start the fire” three times an hour at the gym! Songs start to lose its appeal after the 100th time in a month you hear ‘em
Actually, I think that’s where the psychotic rage comes in!
I jest, mostly. Of course, “still rock ‘n roll to me” song has to be the least rocking song I’ve ever heard
Agreed that not every one of his songs is pure gold (
), but I like a number of them. But I think “psychotic rage” and Billy Joel in the same sentence is downright funny. 
Weerd1, my apologies for misspelling your name!
Try listening to that song that many times, Dea! Embrace the Dark Side!
Wait, this is mostly a Trek-themed blog. Nevermind
Syd, I’d love to meet you! If you heard a song 100 times a month that plays 3 times an hour…(getting out calculator because it’s too early in the day)…that’s over an hour every day in the gym, so you must have some muscles on you!
Hey there, big fella. 
And a man with a dark so is okay, too, as long as he isn’t a Sith…oh wait, you don’t like Billy Joel. I take it all back!
Darth Vader does NOT listen to Billy Joel!
Astute and spot on IMHO, Weerd1.
This re-imagining of the Enterprise is just one more example of Abrams’ complete and utter disregard for common sense. It’s all about flash and no substance. He missed the mark, pure and simple. He did this in two very distinct ways.
1. He completely disregarded the foundational underpinnings of what Star Trek was all about as per Gene Roddenberry’s intent.
2. He failed miserably to introduce us to his characters and his new mythos. We jump into a world that for all intents and purposes is a slap in the face to what Gene had intended.
Now, please understand that I did not have the pleasure of ever having met Gene Roddenberry, but I feel strongly that there are certain things in what he did, and how he did it that tell us exactly what his vision of the future was.
Despite the seemingly utopian view of Star Trek, Gene had created a brilliant past that served to move us into the future he created. Mankind has near destroyed itself both with the atomic horror of World War III, and the Eugenics wars. Mankind is barely recovering from it’s own stupidity when a genius in the man of Zefram Cochrane discovers warp drive and leads to humanity’s first extra terrestrial contact. It’s simple in it’s concept and explosive in it’s impact.
In one fell swoop Gene has encompassed all of the flaws of his characters and laid bare the prejudices we may have for the follies they are. He creates a world hungry for an end to war, an end to hatred and prejudice and a need to recognize that we are all the same under the skin. Into this rich and fertile soil comes the final galvanizing shock. We are not alone in the universe.
Unlike previous writers who viewed extra terrestrials as monsters bent on world domination, or alien perverts bent on stealing our women, Gene opens our future with an alien race willing to look past our flaws and weaknesses to see what humanity is capable of. Humanity, in Gene’s mind is far better than we may actually be. If I have to choose between the gritty future of Abrams and the semi-utopian view of Roddenberry, I far prefer the optimism of Roddenberry. He saw us as far more than we are and I think that speaks volumes.
Roddenberry creates a world that rewards for merit. A world where each of us is free to pursue those things which we love the most. Not just to better ourselves, but the condition of humanity overall. Brave men and women don’t go into space because they have to, they go because they want to. They go because it is man’s nature to push boundaries and explore beyond that which is known to that which lies beyond. Gene creates a world in which the farmer is equal to the engineer because both as seen as necessary to the betterment of humanity. A world where working with your hands is just as noble as working with your mind. Indeed, a world where one goes with the other because both are required.
Abrams created a world which reverberates to the self indulgent. We are met face to face with a James Kirk who is more concerned about his own self pity than the world around him. From the beginning we see that Gene’s optimism is lost and replaced with this very current sense of “what’s in it for me?”. Kirk’s character enters Star Fleet on a DARE and chooses to look at the entire thing as a convenient way to pick up women. While Roddenberry’s Kirk was indeed a womanizer, the core of the man was far more in depth. We barely glimpse that in Abrams world.
What we are able to see through all the moving camera angles, lens flares and constant motion is a cacophony of disjointed ideas and clashing statements. We are never given the opportunity to get a clear grasp of what these people are about. To add insult to injury, Kirk is immediately promoted to captain and rewarded with the Enterprise without so much as a year in a junior grade. A slap in the face to just about any person who has ever spent time in any service. Granted it IS the movies, but there is the sense that you can be a complete jackass and still advance.
So, after all this griping, what am I saying? Simple. We have more than enough gritty, self indulgent science fiction to go around. Star Trek in all of it’s various forms was the one place where thinking people could both immerse themselves in a fantastic story and still be comforted in knowing that the world they were in had reason. That the pieces fit together into something more or less homogeneous. It also presented a world in which we were better than we are. Capable of putting the needs of others ahead of our own selfish concerns. Where we recognized people as themselves regardless of the colour of their skin, or the planet of their origin.
Even Gene recognized that action was required, but that action fit within the framework of the greater whole. Abrams threw out that framework and presents us with a world that just is. It’s not really a nice world either. We aren’t better in any way, and from what I saw, in some ways we are worse in his re-imagining.
So we are left with a world that panders to the insecurity, mistrust and even fear that exists today without any sense that this is a future we would want to create. There is no sense that we have a need to explore, to seek, to strive, to boldly go.
Yes, 40 years may have made a bit of a mess in some respects to the world that is Star Trek, but it is a far site better than the path I see Abrams going down, and in the end we will see that most people will tire of it and long for a future which calls to us to go forth and find new life.
Not just out there, but within ourselves.
The future IS…….
Pretty much spot on F.E., unfortunately the most you’ll find here are folks who identify more with brand name than plot or character development.
God only knows I think we’ve had too many discussions on this with the same things generally being said ad nauseum (and of course I think everyone has the right to do just that!), but of all the points you make, I’ll respond to the one about Kirk (since I probably responded to all the others on this blog before).
I don’t see him as one or two dimensional in the movie as you do. And part of the reason is because of the rich, deep history we have of all of these characters. The new movie takes into account that the majority of the audience will know the personalities already and doesn’t feel the need to introduce from scratch each one. Kirk did not join on a dare or to meet women. He could meet women anywhere. What Pike told him made him reflect, and maybe he joined with a chip on his shoulder and loads of confidence, but that goes with Kirk territory, in my book.
I don’t think anyone set out to destroy the Trek that already exists. Actually the main goal was to make a successful, money making movie…the best way to do that is shake it up but identify with the old, and maybe pick up some new friends along the way. I heard more interest from non Trek fans on this movie than anything in the past, and it was positive. I’m talking people from my 55 year old sister to my 27 year old niece…a great thing in my book.
I’m done, and I don’t plan on rehashing any more debates…unless a new thought strikes me!
I also thought that through the course of the movie Kirk grows a lot, from cocky punk in the beginning to more of the Kirk we know from TOS. He matures.
Loved that movie, saw it 5 times, once at IMAX (which was unbelievable). Still think the ship’s ridiculous-looking from any angle but the side.
the problem is a lot of Trek fans bitterly resent the fact that this film is so popular among the mainstream film goers. Some say that there’s no reason why Trek done the way the fans want (i.e. rigidly and unquestioningly sticking to Roddenberry’s supposed “vision”) could not also be a mainstream success, but, the evidence just doesn’t back them up in that assertion. But a lot of fans I think feel threatened by the fact that a rebooted Trek has made a big splash, and this means that there is now no chance of it ever being done “right” again (according to them).
Of course, my assertion is that hey, why can’t the mainstream audience have a turn? Why can’t there be a more commercially viable Trek for everyone to enjoy? Trek fans kind of jealously guard their turf, but sadly, the cat is out of the bag, the new Trek was the biggest ever Trek earner, and this is, I’m afraid, the direction it is going to go in from now on. Maybe I’m just lucky because I enjoyed the film. Who knows.
I’m sure everyone’s seen it before, but…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM
Excuse me while I don my flameproof suit.
LOVE that video, its all so spot-on.
See also:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsPopularNowItSucks
*Dives into flameproof suit*
I think Trek XI ought to be judged using movie parameters instead of TV series ones. After all, many of the criticisms hurled at it could very well be made to several other Trek movies.
Until we see a new universe-based TV series we won’t know how well this works as a replacement.
Excellent point Snafu- Even in TOS, the Spock of either “The Cage” or “Where No Man Has Gone Before” is not the Spock who will become a staple of modern pop culture. It took time to develop the characters, so you have a deeper understanding. How much do we really get Utopian values or even real character development in a film like “Star Trek IV”? Instead we get a Kirk who rather than being punished for his actions is rewarded because he happened to save the planet, and from a dramatic standpoint it allows the franchise to move forward- sounds familiar.
Additionally, Roddenberry always wanted Trek to be a commercial success as well as a quality show. Skimpy outfits, actions scenes, and embedded merchandise (remember how the IDIC came to be?) show this to be true. Look at TOS objectively, and though still greater than the sum of its parts, I think you will find a lot more similarities to Abrams Trek than are apparent on the surface. The humans were not perfect in TOS (CMDR Decker, CPT Tracey, Dr. Adams, Kodos the Executioner, darn near any Federation ambassador). TOS showed a better future, not a perfect one. Sexism, Xenophobia, greed, envy- all quite present in the TOS Starfleet, not just one off characters. I mean, I do it too, I also remember Trek as utopian. I wonder though how much of that is my nostalgia, or my interpretation of the overall message of 79 hours of footage.
Talk to me again when we have 79 hours of Abramsverse!
Never fails to amaze me peeps love to banter about Trek 2.0. Good, IMO. Yea or nay, it’s got peeps talkin’ Trek, eh.
LLP,
deg
I don’t know if it’s a love of banter, but more from exasperation and frustation.
Eric
A little bit from column A, a little from column B and a dash from column C. Maybe a few other nuggets in there as well.
Simon, there you go again throwing about accusations that most Star Trek fans are bitter and don’t want a Star Trek movie to be successful. I get the impression from many of your posts that you resent the original series lasting success.
If people like this new movie then good for them. I won’t lose sleep over it and i’ll continue to enjoy discussing the finer points of what I thought of it and the ship design etc. Hope you learn to live with that.
AHMEN BROTHER!
well, fact is, some are bitter. Haven’t you seen the people waving their arms around shouting about Trek being “hijacked” “destroyed” or “replaced” by Abrams and co? I’ve seen some pretty paranoid stuff go down over this film. I certainly don’t resent the original show, why would I? That would be completely irrational. I enjoy the new film, I realize there would be no film to enjoy if there had been no series. So if you’re going to put words in my mouth, at least make them logical words. I’m just sick of seeing the new film being criticized for what it is not rather than being praised for what it is. And what it is is a beautifully made, entertaining, fairly intelligent sci fi action film that also serves as a loving tribute to the series that inspired it.
It just seems like the only tiem you comment on this blog these days is when soemone says something unflattering about the Abrams Star Trek, as if you’ve decided to be its defender in chief, so with comments that are always antagonistic and adversarial to a lot of people, it kind of becomes a drag. Especially when this blog is a lot of fun the overwhelming portion of the time.
As opposed to Trekmovie where everything has to suck-up and be positive regarding the “new trek” (or any other trek media, comics fan fils etc. released))so that the webmaster gets an “all access” pass to the production???? Doug’s site is one of the best sites for true trek fans to let there opinions be know, pro or con!
ALL HAIL THE DREX FILES!
“Hijacked” “Destroyed” Replaced”?
Walks like a duck… Quacks like a duck… Looks like a duck…
The problem is that this sorta-Trek will now become the franchise, or the version of the franchise the money men and studio will back. It IS replacing Trek as a professional movie and possibly television franchise.
It does destroy cornerstones of the “universe’s” backstory, large segments of character conception and depiction, and much of it’s philosophy and “feel.”
Hijacking is a strong word, but the complete replacement of creative teams is a de facto takeover.
This stark reality is disappointing. A lot of fans are disappointed. They, including myself, are not “jealous.” “Jealousy” would be more apt if it meant that a current competing version was beating out another. This is instead, an actual replacement.
This wide-spread disappointment is from the realization that this probably means the end of the beloved Trek “universe” as a continuing, professionally created motion picture and television form. I’ll assume that the popular books lines will continue, and fan-made creations will still be made, but the “big media” Trek projects will all be Abramsverse.
So, please understand if we don’t cheer.
Eric
I can really see why you’re so upset, Abrams and Paramount having confiscated and burned all previous Trek videos, DVD’s, blu rays, etc. Oh, wait….
Wow.
By expressing my displeasure with the current state of Trek affairs, and lamenting that the continuity of a thought-provoking entertainment franchise has gotten derailed, I therefore must be a simpleton and emotional cripple, eh?
As far as I can tell, I’m not foaming at the mouth, nor hyperventilating.
I actually don’t watch older episodes very much, and own next to zero Trek DVD’s, etc… Nor am I some blind apologist for the warts, missteps and failures that cropped up throughout the run of various series and films. I did grow up with this stuff, and it occupies a soft spot in my heart.
Baseline, I miss the chance to see more, new Trek creations that ring true as Trek. I guess that makes me a wild-eyed nut. Maybe is it just me, but if I had the chance to be at the helm of a creative endeavour with a long history and devoted fan base, I would have used more care, and though it might (and probably does)sound overblown, shown more respect to the material placed in my trust.
Feel free to continue heaping derision…
Eric
Oh, and in case nobody noticed, Trek had already ended as a professionally-created film and television medium years before the new film was announced. Why did it end? A combination of network politics, fan apathy, and declining quality and innovation in story and characterisation. I hardly call the job being done on Trek post-DS9 a totally fantastic miraculous success. But I guess many fans for some reason preferred the slow slide into obscurity and ridicule Trek was taking before the new movie arrived and shook things up, reignited fading interest in Trek while pulling in scores of new fans…
How dare they replace the fading, barely-alive corpse of the Trek franchise with something fun and vibrant!
Bless you Simon Matthew Coles. Very well said.
Well, speaking for myself only, I LOVED ENT, and Trek was none of the things you describe, to me. And I like the new Trek for the most part too, sans the new E.
LLP,
deg
I’m with you, deg. (Though I still hold that the new E actually looks really good from the side, just awful from every other angle)
Better it stay dead till a time when it can be done in a way that isn’t a travesty like this AbramsThing with the ships built on Earth and characters apparently all act like children. By way of comparison, I’d happily forego the whole Roger Moore era of Bond in favor of a 16 yr moratorium between Connery and Dalton, even if it meant missing out on some great Derek Meddings miniatures and wonderful Ken Adam design work, just because who needs these incredibly shitty movies?
ACTION JACKSON was fun and vibrant, and dumb as they come. Which is fine in and of itself, but if it were a reboot of Sherlock Holmes, it would be even more inappropriate than the Levinson film.
“A combination of network politics, declining quality and innovation in story and characterisation.”
Well when you have the same producer doing the same show 18 years straight then that’s bound to happen. Star Trek can still be innovative and fun with the right people without the need to be rebooted or replaced or have an altered timeline. This is just flim flam talk. Reboot does not equal good and new. It’s just a word, an excuse to change something without realizing what the real problem is.
“Haven’t you seen the people waving their arms around shouting about Trek being “hijacked” “destroyed” or “replaced” by Abrams and co?”
You know what? I haven’t! But I did read the views of what I call “the minority”. Not the minority of fans of TOS who dislike the new movie. The minority with extreme views that they can only express by insulting the fanbase and anyone who doesn’t like what they like. But I don’t consider that constructive criticism, nor do I think they represent my views or the majority of people. I think we can clearly see here on the Drex files that the “bitter fans” you describe are not around these parts.
“How dare they replace the fading, barely-alive corpse of the Trek franchise with something fun and vibrant!”
The movie they made is hardly the only imaginable possibility for accomplishing this goal.
1) “Preferred the slow slide into obscurity and ridicule”? Hell no. I was disappointed by much – actually large portions – of the last movies and series. A lot of us never blindly cheered.
2) “Something fun and vibrant”? Hey great! Fun! Vibrant! But why masquerade it as Trek? If originality and re-invention are such lofty goals, why not start with something completely new? Oh, probably because it would be riskier and be less likely to bring the same financial return for the investment…
Oops – my cyncism showed.
Eric
Paul,
AHMEN BROTHER!
Paul F.
F.E. Spencer,
Amazingly well said, I couldent have said it better!
Paul F.
Lyrics to:
“Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off”
You say “either” and I say “either”
You say “neither” I say “neither”
“Either” “either”, “neither” “neither”
Let’s call the whole thing off
You say “potato,” I say “patattah”
You say “tomato”, I say “creole tomata”
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart
So, I say “ursta” you say “oyster”
I’m not gonna stop eatin’ urstas just cause you say oyster,
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off!
‘Cause I’d be Oh, so sad if we did!
Couldn’t you get someone to video tape you and Dorth singin’ it for us?
YOU SAY STAR TREK,
AND I STARSHIP TROOPERS,
YOU SAY ENGINEERING,
AND I SAY BUDWEISER,
YOU SAY KIRK
AND I SAY JERK,
TOMATO, TAMATO,
YOUR RIGHT, LET’S CALL THIS WHOLE MOVIE SERIES OFF!
ALL IN FUN PEOPLE!
I’d be curious to see Andy’s reaction to Church’s (IMHO) far superior original design paintings. There’s a comparison between the concept and final here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/4061631550_820b2d5b08_o.jpg
Man, that’s MUCH better! It seems infinitely better-proportioned than the final product. And orange nacelle caps > blue ones.
Agreed. I love the proportions and graceful lines. My only objection would be the height of the nacelles. Those pylons are really tall! I also think the nacelles also look better. They are more narrow and more suited to the rest of the ship.
Man, that design is great.
WHY IN THE WORLD THEY DIDN’T USE IT?
I like that original design a lot more than what we got.
“What’s the mission of this vessel, Doctor?
To seek out and contact alien life
and an opportunity to demonstrate
what our high-sounding words mean.”
I can’t put it better then Mr. Verta has…
http://www.twodoorford.com/Posts/ST_Commentary_Pt.1.mp3
Many interesting points so far. After seeing the movie 2 or 3 times, I got used to the look of the ship. Do I like it as much as the previous one? So far – no! Would have the Ryan Church concept sketch looked better – to me…maybe. Did the movie something good for Star Trek? Well, as mentioned earlier, it got people interested in Star Trek that weren’t before, so at least it made “a difference” (to quote Shatner-Kirk….
)
What “Trek” lies ahead of us with the Abramsverse Star Trek? Who knows, so “buckle up” (to quote Pine-Kirk) and enjoy(?) the ride.
Cheers
Thorsten
P.S.: Has there been any discussion so far concerning the new Phaser Design?
I’d really encourage people to give the new E a second chance… in Blu Ray: the movie looks gorgeous in high definition, and the ship is impressive seen in full detail.
The new phasers were a bit confusing: there were machinegun-style pulsed ones and traditional continuous beams (the Kelvin’s were pretty interesting as shown). They seemed to come from different types of turrets, weren’t they.
Photorps were rather dull.
Yes the new E details are impressive thanks to the masters at ILM, but the design is still bad, I feel that the other starship classes (Kelvin, Newton, Defiant and the other Saucer/ 2 Nacelle) were better designs, and they look great in blue ray!
I’m all about being opened-minded and change, and IDIC, but I just cannot take a liking to the new E. And it’s not because of any prejudice or ill-feeling toward Trek 2.0. I have none of that.
I just do not like the aesthetic of the overall balance of her now. It’s just off, plain and simple. Quite frankly, I can’t believe they filmmakers could not see that.
LLP,
deg
They couldn’t see it was “off balance” because its not a fact, its just your opinion, and I don’t really think JJ Abrams has a telepathic link to your personal thoughts.
A bad design for a bad notion of restarting Trek at least keeps all the bad stuff together, and away from my pocketbook.
Maybe the NEXT restart of TREK will feature a good designer who brings something new while honoring what went before, and in service to a real ST story, not this revisionist mythological crap.
This grouping of bad design and bad story for trek actually makes me feel better, since I hate getting suckered to buy stuff like EVENT HORIZON and SPY WHO LOVED ME just because the miniature and set design work is excellent even though it is in service to a crap picture. But there doesn’t seem to be anything about the abrams thing that holds appeal for me.
Well, Simon, there are a number of industry professionals and fans here that don’t happen to share your opinion. And having seen you express your opinion about the original Enterprise rather *strongly* on other forums I’d suggest that out of respect to our kind host Mr. Drexler that you take it easy and realize that the new ship isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. That doesn’t make them wrong for not liking it, or you wrong for liking the new Enterprise. As you pointed out, the movie did well so why not simply respect each other’s opinions and likings and move on? Agree to disagree – it’s not such a bad thing.
And please don’t paint everyone with such a broad brush – speaking for myself, just because I don’t like the new ship doesn’t make me a bitter fan. I saw the movie five times, one time at an IMAX theater, have the blu-ray on pre-order and also have two of the Playmates Enterprise ships. So while I don’t care for some of the things in the movie, I can certainly appreciate it for what it is and enjoy it.
the primary hull and interconnecting dorsal are the only parts of the ship I do like !
the rest of it should be re-designed to match the upgrade , not blown off the map!
Just to add that this crazy person has posted about 5.000 HD screen captures from the Blu Ray here: http://reboot.trekcaps.net/index.php?cat=Star_Trek&page=1
So now you can examine her from all her angles.
Also, it seems we are about to get a production art book: http://titanbooks.com/products/us/10567-star_trek/
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of how awesome this film is.
Its too bad that doesn’t work both ways.
Its *STILL* too bad that doesn’t work both ways.
And this time I’ll even include the passive-aggressive smiley face so everyone knows I’m “just kidding”
Sound and Fury signifying … NOTHING.
I *STILL* can’t hear you over how awesome it is.
Come on people, where’s your sense of humour?
MY sensayuma has been re-enjoying THE PRINCESS BRIDE and DR STRANGELOVE and WAG THE DOG, thank you veddy much.