John Scharmen ([info]rohantm) wrote,
@ 2008-11-19 10:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: nostalgic

NCC-90210
As an old-school Trek geek, I can't let the new trailer pass without comment.

While the purist in me hates the production design for the Enterprise, and I'm not sure how I feel about the whole Smallville vibe, I have to say that the movie looks like a pretty interesting take on the franchise.

I'm the first to admit that I haven't liked any Star Trek ship design since the original movies (with the exception of the NX-01), but this new one is particularly awful.  I actually preferred the hoaxed design with the penis nacelles.  They managed to move all the classic design elements around into something that has all of the grace wrung out of it.

The interiors would be wonderful for a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they are too clinical for the Enterprise.  I wouldn't want to spend five years on that vessel; I'd die of depression.  Even TOS sets looked more comfortable.

That said, I think it's all good science-fiction design even if not entirely appropriate to the franchise.  I loved the opening car chase, with its little hints that you weren't actually in the sixties (the license plate, the futuristic siren, the arcologies looming in the blue distance).  I love that the Enterprise viewscreen is now actually a window with computer overlays; you can see the 'hood' of the saucer outside.  No more flying blind into nebulae.  And I don't doubt that it will be well-directed, though whether I will like the direction is another matter.

Constructing the ship on the ground?  Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Still, I've been in front of the TV for every Star Trek pilot (except the first).  I've been in the theatre for every Star Trek film.  I've only regretted it once.  Why stop now?


(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]rikkisimons
2008-11-19 09:24 pm UTC (link)
So far, the only reason I can see for that thing to be built on the ground is to have a shot of young turk Kirk looking up at it from a motorcycle. What happened to all the ""This ship cannot enter atmosphere" tech lore of the past 40 years? More than anything else, that makes me go cross-eyed.

As for the ship design, it only looks okay from the front and aft. Side shots are gruesome. But I knew that was coming, mostly because Abrams likes horrible designs. Look no further than the Cloverfield monster (worst kaiju EVAR) to see where his sensibilities lie.

The thing that excites me about the trailer however is its visual scope. The arcologies in the haze is such a simple treat, something that could have been added to any number of ground based future films with a zero budget one wonders why we had to wait until a 100 million plus budget film had to show up before they were painted into a background.

This movie could end up being the worst best thing ever. It can't possibly be as disappointing as Phantom Menace, can it? Can it? Oh, God ... .

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rohantm
2008-11-20 01:49 am UTC (link)
I'm okay with it entering atmosphere. They did that in the Star Trekker manga parody. (Underwater too!) =) But horribly impractical to build it in a gravity well in an era of cheap orbital flight.

It could be horrible. It could also be cool, like an alternate-universe comic book story. Battlestar Galactica has pulled it off. And teenage flashy boobie explosion movie will probably skew better with the younguns than Wagon Train to the Stars or Horatio Hornblower in Space. My unscientific survey on Star Wars tells me so far, that people under 25 seem to like the new movies better. I don't think this film is being made for classic Trek fans. They want to repackage it and start over.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dreamliner
2008-11-20 06:15 pm UTC (link)
Personally, it would have been better if they just used this film to reboot the franchise for a new generation of fans. It has been successfully done with the new "Battlestar Galactica" series. It looks like it's happening successfully with "Transformers", as well.

That it's "Star Trek" and not "Star Trek XI" should have been the hint, but JJ swears he wants to attract the current fanbase, as well. Which I think is a mistake because with 40 years of "history" behind it, I just don't see how we (and I am using the Royal form) are going to really accept it. Enterprise tested us enough, but this looks tougher. So you can't show us something more primitive then TOS without going to 1950's B-movies level of design. And that won't fly on a $100 thousand movie, to say nothing of a $100 million one.

The simple fact is that technology that was "magical" in TOS is "laughable" now. Even when the franchise has tried to update the TOS look to a modern level (the ENT episode with the USS Defiant), it just doesn't work.

As to building a starship on the ground, even in TNG we saw the completed sections of a 4.5 million ton mass Galaxy Class starship on the surface of Mars at the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards. Some believe these were in fact prototype test sections never meant for actual use, since "Booby Trap" does show the USS Galaxy herself being assembled in a Spacedock in Mars orbit and VOY's "Relativity" showed additional GCS vessels being built in orbital frame docks (as the TNGTM claims happened with Enterprise, herself).

I mean, when you have complete control over gravity and inertia like you do by the 22nd Century, there really is nothing stopping you from building the ship on the ground. And it likely is easier then doing it in orbit since it is easier to work in a gravity well (especially one where you can control the coefficient of that gravity) compared to the microgravity of orbit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rohantm
2008-11-29 06:40 pm UTC (link)
All good points about building a starship on the ground. That doesn't really change the fact that it looks dumb. I could even swallow building the hulls and the nacelles on the ground and then hauling them into space for final assembly. But really, for a ship that is never intended to land, why bother building it on the ground when you can transport or replicate all the raw materials and components you need to assemble it in orbit? There's all that dirt and weather to contend with on the ground, as well as vermin infestation etc.

Abrams said he was trying to attract the old fanbase? Wow, he's doing a terrible job of it. Aside from the uniforms (which now have an awful thermal-underwear texture to them), Syler-Spock is the only thing that has even a hint of the feel of the old show.

And god, time travel. I wish they would please, PLEASE stop making Star Trek stories with time travel in them. I'm sure if they really try they can make the 23rd century cool all by itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Tiime Travel
[info]dreamliner
2008-11-29 11:04 pm UTC (link)
Alas, time travel is how they get to bring Leonard Nimoy's Spock in to...appeal...to the old fan base.

Maybe we'll get lucky and the whole thing will take place in an alternate universe. *niko niko*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ringtail1592
2009-01-04 10:48 am UTC (link)
Pardon me for posting. I was curious about the posts on the new Star Trek movie.

The only thing I have seen of the movie was a teaser trailer that did not show much, just someone welding iron and a quick *here-gone* partial view of the Enterprise and some quick takes of the new actors for the original crew. So, I really don't have a clue how the movie will come out.

My main gripe is that the crew looked like Star Trek: The Teen Years. I mean, the crew were suppose to be seasoned men and women who had already done assigned voyages. The only youngster of the bunch should be Chechov who is the youngest of the crew. The oldest was Doctor McCoy with the exception of Spock who was Science Officer under the first Captain. These guys in this new rendition look like they just got out of Jr. High!

That's the only rant I can say about it. One thing is for sure, I will try not to get my hopes high on this movie. I got my expectations way up when I went and seen "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and got a big let down.

Also, Mr. Sharman, I just found your beautiful on-line comic. I was just in awe! It's so nice to see comics done with such wonderfully rich artwork with great characters and an intriguing story!

Jeff Ringtail

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rohantm
2009-01-04 11:23 pm UTC (link)
Yes. I have heard that Abrams intends to pull in original fans with this one, but I haven't really seen any bones thrown to them so far. The only thing with a classic feel is the uniforms, which look a bit out of place as a result.

Thanks for the kind words on the comic! =)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…