# QMx and the 2009 Enterprise



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

For those you of you who do not like this ship, please stay calm.

TrekMovie.com reports that the Enterprise from the 2009 Movie is now available for half a grand. I personally wouldn't part with that much cash, but...

http://trekmovie.com/2011/10/18/qmx-unveils-2009-star-trek-movie-enterprise-replica-yours-for-5k/

I noticed that it has very traditional markings on the underside of the secondary hull. Is that for "real" or is that an idea of one of the QMx guys??


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Uh...it's not half a grand...it's half of TEN grand. $500 for a lit and well painted 3 foot model would have probably been worth considering!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The markings were in the film..... and at $5000, way out of may budget. Initially they were spotting it at around $1000 to $1200. Oh well, have fun rich people....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*$5,000???* That's crazy! I wouldn't pay that even for the TOS E, never mind the ST09 thing. That's just nuts.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Years from now I would really like to know how many they actually sell. :freak:

Not saying the quality isn't there. But not a fan of the ship and even if I was, I'd spend the $$ on a new home computer and still have 2 grand left over. Really pricey.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> *$5,000???* That's crazy! I wouldn't pay that even for the TOS E, never mind the ST09 thing. That's just nuts.


Now calm down! 
Although that "mirrored" base does look familiar..........:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Actually I would think that expected demand is very much a part of the price point. Meaning in order for this to make a profit they have to make a great deal of money on the few people willing to spring for a deluxe replica of this subject. That's not a judgment (I don't have a problem with the ship and would love to have this if I had the room and the money for it)--just simple economics.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Agreed. For the level of interest it's expected to see, every build-up will effectively be a totally custom build. No "mass-production" shortcuts or savings.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, best of luck to them!


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

phicks said:


> Uh...it's not half a grand...it's half of TEN grand. $500 for a lit and well painted 3 foot model would have probably been worth considering!


:freak: OOPS! Of course you are correct sir! (Way out of my range at either price!)


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I must admit, if I had two grand (plus) to spare right now, I'd be highly tempted to buy their Firefly "big damn replica," but that's because I LOVE that ship (and that show). As far as ST'09 is concerned, I doubt that the appeal reaches that of the Serenity, though. I say this because the "big damn replica" is more complicated (at least externally) than the ST'09 ship, overall, so if the quantities were the same, I'd expect the price to be similar as well.

https://store.qmxonline.com/Serenity--The-Big-Damn-Replica_p_75.html

(check out the gallery)

And there are plenty of vids on Youtube from people with this (and since it's a custom-build, not every build-up you'll see on there is identical... so I've chosen one that is built "stock" to show)





(initial unboxing and setup)

and the same guy a couple of days later, discussing more detail and more specifics.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

For those that want it, go with God my friends and enjoy.

I do wonder how they managed to survive the approval process where R2 (seemingly) could not.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> For those that want it, go with God my friends and enjoy.
> 
> I do wonder how they managed to survive the approval process where R2 (seemingly) could not.


While nobody is going to come out and say what really happened (legal restrictions, I presume), I suspect that the decision not to proceed was made more from the "return on investment" end of things, at Round2, than it was made on the basis of Paramount Pictures.

No inside info here, just some common sense reasoning. If up-front investment was high, and market research didn't show a sufficient market to bring about at least a "Break even" return on investment, the project would be killed on that basis.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hence, why this puppy costs five grand.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

This is how much I would give them for this model....


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> While nobody is going to come out and say what really happened (legal restrictions, I presume), I suspect that the decision not to proceed was made more from the "return on investment" end of things, at Round2, than it was made on the basis of Paramount Pictures.
> 
> No inside info here, just some common sense reasoning. If up-front investment was high, and market research didn't show a sufficient market to bring about at least a "Break even" return on investment, the project would be killed on that basis.


Oh, I'm sure that at the core, you're quite correct. It's just interesting to speculate just what the break point for the ROI was, given what seems to have been a large amount of resources spent in development. As we old folks know Star Trek kits are generally 'evergreen' (of course some sell better than others that's always true of ANY line) and the question would have been "having missed the obvious windows to cash in on (theater run, home video release), would the '09 Enterprise have the 'legs' of the other kits?". It seems when the numbers were cooked the answer was "no".

I dunno, I think I would have enjoyed seeing what some of the folks here would have done, their variations, alterations and modifications to correct the flaws or mis-steps in the design (at least, to my eyes, again, YMMV).


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

IIRC, the initial models provided to artists to build and paint were all stereolithographs. If this is still true and no moulds were made for mass production, that would shove cost straight through roof.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Steve H said:


> Oh, I'm sure that at the core, you're quite correct. It's just interesting to speculate just what the break point for the ROI was, given what seems to have been a large amount of resources spent in development. As we old folks know Star Trek kits are generally 'evergreen' (of course some sell better than others that's always true of ANY line) and the question would have been "having missed the obvious windows to cash in on (theater run, home video release), would the '09 Enterprise have the 'legs' of the other kits?". It seems when the numbers were cooked the answer was "no".
> 
> I dunno, I think I would have enjoyed seeing what some of the folks here would have done, their variations, alterations and modifications to correct the flaws or mis-steps in the design (at least, to my eyes, again, YMMV).


I suspect differently because of the way it happened, with the posting of the mockup being suddenly pulled. I think Round 2 development may have run too long for the agreement, and another licensor bigfooted the kit.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'd buy one but it wouldn't fit in the trunk of my Lamborghini Reventon.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

charonjr said:


> IIRC, the initial models provided to artists to build and paint were all stereolithographs. If this is still true and no moulds were made for mass production, that would shove cost straight through roof.


I saw the photos of the concept parts, and there is zero question but that these elements were SLA (stereolithographic apparatus) prototypes. No mold was made.

Unfortunately, some folks saw physical parts and concluded that there was already a mold, and thus that the model was already thought through and ready to release... clearly, not the case.

The QMX prop is exorbitantly pricey, and will likely mainly sell to the ludicrously wealthy, or to people who have a great personal attachment to the flick (wonder if JJ Abrams will be buying one?)

Me, I have to say... the idea of spending $2,500 on a "Serenity" would be tempting, if the economy was in just a bit better shape right now and money wasn't quite as tight...

Hopefully, they'll still have a few of their 1,000 piece run remaining and I'll still have a chance to get one. I LOVE that ship. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Did anyone notice the difference in the deflector dish on the QMX replica as opposed to the CGI model? It's even different from the pictures of the QMX prototype? Why the change???










and

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/KG_MMM_QMX_JJ_1701_015.jpg


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

According to my friend who has his own hobby shop, his inside information is that the R2/PL kit was cancelled "due to lack of interest." I don't know what that was based on, though - lack of pre-orders from dealers, maybe?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> *$5,000???* That's crazy! I wouldn't pay that even for the TOS E, never mind the ST09 thing. That's just nuts.


Corperate greed equels lack of common sense when it comes to putting a retail price tag on something like that Enterprise, or in other words they think that just because it is from Star Trek that people are willing to pay mega bucks for it. Go figure.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

John P said:


> According to my friend who has his own hobby shop, his inside information is that the R2/PL kit was cancelled "due to lack of interest." I don't know what that was based on, though - lack of pre-orders from dealers, maybe?


And I heard another licensor went nuts when the parts were posted. It makes sense, since so much was spent on development, then it was just shut down. When I say so much, of course I meant man-hours, since just by the photos alone, those clearly were obviously not parts from an injection mold.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Aaaand I got another story that PL was taking too long to develop it, and CBS/Paramount/Whoever cancelled it.

I guess we'll never know. Not that it's keeping me up at night.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

True. I'm sure my story is no more reliable than yours, and probably less so.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

_*it was bush's fault!*_


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Captain April said:


> _*it was bush's fault!*_


Domino effect or chain of events and it all started back in the early '80s when an actor by the name of ronald reagon got cast in the longest role of his career, 8 years, when he was 'cast' as the president of the United States.:tongue:


----------



## JamesInNC (Sep 17, 2011)

So, is the board now opening itself to political comments. Thought those were strictly verboten.

Just sayin'

James


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Fraley1701 said:


> Did anyone notice the difference in the deflector dish on the QMX replica as opposed to the CGI model? It's even different from the pictures of the QMX prototype? Why the change???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well thats pretty easy,

you can put lights anywhere you want on a CG model.

Trying to accomplish that on a physical model can be really difficult.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Re: the "JJ Dish,"

Remember that this was a purely CGI creation... and remember, also, that the "dish" as seen on-screen "morphs" through various physical configurations. ("It's magic... ooooo....")

So, it doesn't surprise me to see multiple versions of the dish... and in particular to see one implemented which actually makes it physically possible to light the thing.

I'm trying... really hard... not to rip into silliness of the "mighty morphin' glowy-dish." I'll just say that I, personally, really really disliked it, and think that the term I coined above sums up my feelings perfectly.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Howzabout them Swiss Army hand phasers? :devil:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

John P said:


> According to my friend who has his own hobby shop, his inside information is that the R2/PL kit was cancelled "due to lack of interest." I don't know what that was based on, though - lack of pre-orders from dealers, maybe?


It WAS lack of interest, lol... I know there are some big fans of the JJ-Prise out there, but as well as the film did in box office, DVD and BD sales, the "toy" type of merchandising has been dismal.

I live a block away from a big Toys R Us store and a Big Lots... the Toys R Us is only now starting to chip away at the JJ-Trek toy sales, and even those are on the _"please get these f-ing things out of our store"_ clearance rack, for $3.00. The same with Big Lots... there's a whole ISLE of nothing but JJ-Trek stuff at my local Big Lots, and those have been stagnating there for over a YEAR... and those are priced at $1.99, LOL.

So, yes, while a fair number of model builders may want a good JJ-Prise kit to build, the market simply isn't there to justify the cost of producing one... at least not yet. Maybe, after the next film, things will change a bit... who knows? For now, it seems most people are wanting the TOS-E at 1/350.


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Re: the "JJ Dish,"
> 
> Remember that this was a purely CGI creation... and remember, also, that the "dish" as seen on-screen "morphs" through various physical configurations. ("It's magic... ooooo....")
> 
> ...


I suppose I should have been more clear in my question. I do understand that the original model is CGI only. What I noticed was that the QMX prototype had the dish modeled exactly like the GGI version in the picture I posted. Now however, the QMX production version has a far more detailed dish than the original CGI version. I do not recall it morphing in the film as I did not pay that close attention. I was just curious why QMX may have changed this detail.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The important thing is we wouldn't want to miss a chance to dump on the movie or the design--after all no one's really had the opportunity to DO that for the past couple of years...


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I'm actually curious if the new film will have any changes to the design. Regardless of what one might think about the exterior of the ship, one thing that the large majority of people hated the most, was the Engineering brewery... it'll be interesting to see if they make a new set design for that this time, or keep it, and if they decide at all to "refit" the exterior to make it look any different.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Fraley1701 said:


> I suppose I should have been more clear in my question. I do understand that the original model is CGI only. What I noticed was that the QMX prototype had the dish modeled exactly like the GGI version in the picture I posted. Now however, the QMX production version has a far more detailed dish than the original CGI version. I do not recall it morphing in the film as I did not pay that close attention. I was just curious why QMX may have changed this detail.


And my point, really, was that I'm not sure that they "changed" it at all. The dish configuration really did change, and change pretty noticeably, during the film. I recommend that you go through and check out shots showing this when the ship is in "tactical mode," and when it's in "warp drive mode" and when it's in "standby mode" and so forth. And then, go to the film and review various sequences when the ship is "about to do something different" and see what happens.

I suppose we all have different levels of "perception" for various types of details. But to me, the "morphing" effect was really jarringly obvious. It looks, in certain shots, like the thing is opening up like one of those time-lapse flower shots.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm actually curious if the new film will have any changes to the design. .


Maybe "Spock Prime" will give the blueprints to the engineers & they will refit it to look like TOS Enterprise! :thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

That's my main complaint as far as production design; the brewery. While there is some logic behind the premise i.e. you still need water, waste management and God knows what else, so pipes and valves may still be needed as well as 'magical' neon tubes, they took it a bit too far. Hopefully they'll scale it back a bit next time round. As far as the Bridge, since this IS a much larger ship, I'd like to see that size put to good use. Like a bi level design with an open atrium style as an upper level.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Will ppl still poop in the 23rd century?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Solium said:


> Will ppl still poop in the 23rd century?


I doubt even they'd waste the technology on beaming it out of you.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

JeffG said:


> That's my main complaint as far as production design; the brewery. While there is some logic behind the premise i.e. you still need water, waste management and God knows what else, so pipes and valves may still be needed as well as 'magical' neon tubes, they took it a bit too far. Hopefully they'll scale it back a bit next time round. As far as the Bridge, since this IS a much larger ship, I'd like to see that size put to good use. Like a bi level design with an open atrium style as an upper level.


The problem there is that the guys who made this flick have no experience with the real world. So, this stuff (which was unfamiliar to them) seemed "cool." For anyone who's ever worked in an industrial environment (which, no matter how you stack it, is always going to be a larger number than "anyone who's ever worked in hollywood movie production"), the sets were just silly... because they were UTTERLY FAMILIAR. They only seemed "cool" to Abrams and the gang because not one of them ever had a real job in a place that makes things, I'm guessing.

And the same goes for the commercial bar-code scanners littering the bridge. These guys obviously never shop at WalMart or Big Lots or wherever. So, to them, these bar-code readers were "unfamiliar cool shapes" while to the average audience member they were "the thing I used to check prices when I'm out shopping."

Shooting in factories is an old trick for "cheap sci-fi." It's common on low-budget TV sci-fi. They did it on Red Dwarf, for example, and that never bothered me, because (a) they tried not to make it TOO obvious, and (b) it was the best they could do on their budget.

That's what you do if you're shooting on a real-world location and trying to sell it as something different. You DE-EMPHASIZE the stuff that people are likely to recognize, and disguise it as much as practical.

[RANT MODE: ON]

I'm sorry, but the "communications bay" scene actually made most folks in the theater laugh... because most of them recognized that these were beer fermentation casks, not "sci-fi doohickies."

The "Engineering" bit was worse, though, because not only was it clearly a contemporary factory with a few CGI bits and some signage tossed into the mix, but it also fell into the "Galaxy Quest Choppers" level of silliness. Yes, while "Galaxy Quest" put in the "choppers" and (rightly) knew we'd all laugh at them... this movie put in effectively the same thing, and expected us not to see it as parody.

Unless... the makers of this flick really did see it as parody?

[RANT MODE: OFF]


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's common knowledge the brewery was used for budgetary reasons. A different engineering room WAS designed (you can see it in the movie Art of Star Trek book), and it simply would have sucked too much out of the movie's budget to build it. The amount of verbiage that's been wasted lambasting this set that occupies about four minutes of the movie's running time is IMHO far more laughable than anything about the set itself. It's a MOVIE. And this is literally the biggest, most repeated criticism I hear lobbed against it ("Engineering looked like a brewery!" Hint: it WAS a brewery).
I would be MORE than happy to see the engineering brewery in a second film if that affords the production the same level of action and visual effects work I saw in the first movie. And I've seen the movie multiple times in theaters and I have yet to hear anyone laugh at the engineering set, possibly because everyone in the audience bought a ticket in a movie theater and actually realized they were watching a movie and not the future. In fact I'm actually hoping that the time that might be wasted cobbling together a sexy new engineering set is instead put to use getting a great guest cast, refining the story and maintaining the level of visual effects work. But that's just me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sorry, but anyone who thinks the engineering section of a 23rd Century starship should resemble the boiler room of the Titanic shouldn't be let within fifty parsecs of being in the position of making a movie about that starship.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> It's common knowledge the brewery was used for budgetary reasons. A different engineering room WAS designed (you can see it in the movie Art of Star Trek book), and it simply would have sucked too much out of the movie's budget to build it. The amount of verbiage that's been wasted lambasting this set that occupies about four minutes of the movie's running time is IMHO far more laughable than anything about the set itself.


Gimme a break, Bond. You're just saying that because, unlike most message board-frequenting Star Trek fans, you have no experience with "the real world."

Take it from me, if not for Irving Feinberg's decision to use salt shakers, TOS would never have been cancelled after three seasons. It was those damned salt shakers that killed the series. And don't get me started on colored marshmallows, bubble-wrap belt buckles, and cuban-heeled Beatle boots.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Take it from me, if not for Irving Feinberg's decision to use salt shakers, TOS would never have been cancelled after three seasons. It was those damned salt shakers that killed the series. And don't get me started on colored marshmallows, bubble-wrap belt buckles, and cuban-heeled Beatle boots.


Correction: I've checked with the Nielson Ratings; turns out it was the store-bought Dickel's whiskey bottle masquerading as futuristic space brandy that killed Trek. 

Despite inspired casting, appealing characters, and well-written teleplays, Real World audiences have proven time and again that they can neither forgive nor ignore relatively minor art directorial indiscretions -- especially when it's the direct result of budgetary limitations imposed by the studio. It's the reason the original Star Wars failed. I mean, who did Lucas think he was fooling with those Graflex flash holders?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Weegee. He fooled Weegee.


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Correction: I've checked with the Nielson Ratings; turns out it was the store-bought Dickel's whiskey bottle masquerading as futuristic space brandy that killed Trek.
> 
> Despite inspired casting, appealing characters, and well-written teleplays, Real World audiences have proven time and again that they can neither forgive nor ignore relatively minor art directorial indiscretions -- especially when it's the direct result of budgetary limitations imposed by the studio. It's the reason the original Star Wars failed. I mean, who did Lucas think he was fooling with those Graflex flash holders?



NICE! :lol:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Gimme a break, Bond. You're just saying that because, unlike most message board-frequenting Star Trek fans, you have no experience with "the real world."
> 
> Take it from me, if not for Irving Feinberg's decision to use salt shakers, TOS would never have been cancelled after three seasons. It was those damned salt shakers that killed the series. And don't get me started on colored marshmallows, bubble-wrap belt buckles, and cuban-heeled Beatle boots.


No, it was the 3rd season 'producer' a man by the name of Fred Frieberger and his way of thinking that killed Star Trek after 3 years. He has done the same with the 2nd season pf space 1999 and the final season of The Six Millionn Dollar Man if not tThe Bionic Woman, with producers like that a show don't need no network big wig deciding to cancel any shows.:wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

OK, switching into "pause sarcasm" mode for a moment, it was Roddenberry's decision to walk away from the series he created that killed TOS.

Not that I blame him. At the time, not even Roddenberry could have known what he was (at least temporarily) walking away from.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Damn. Now I can't look at my Dickle brandy bottle without blaming it for killing Star Trek.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> OK, switching into "pause sarcasm" mode for a moment, it was Roddenberry's decision to walk away from the series he created that killed TOS.
> 
> Not that I blame him. At the time, not even Roddenberry could have known what he was (at least temporarily) walking away from.


Well, it was NBC who killed Star Trek by cutting what they were willing to pay, combined with Nimoy wanting his salary to match Shatner's which contributed to the higher 'above the line' costs, plus Gene **** left and HE was a key driving force, plus other people who ran interference for Roddenberry left, and so on and so on.

There's actually no real 'single point' that caused Star Trek to be canceled. 

If ****, Solow and Justman had stayed on during Frieberger's tenure I suspect the third season of ST might have been pretty amazing. But, didn't happen.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

NBC reneging on that promise of a Monday night time slot and kicking the show to the Friday night "death slot" is what set the death spiral in motion.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It was all _Laugh-In_'s fault!


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

jbond said:


> It's common knowledge the brewery was used for budgetary reasons. A different engineering room WAS designed (you can see it in the movie Art of Star Trek book), and it simply would have sucked too much out of the movie's budget to build it.


They could of made a CGI matte painting for the engineering room and green screened everyone in front of it. Whole movies are made that way nowadays. That would have cost hardly anything considering the size of the budget. So I am not convinced it was a budgetary issue.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Solium said:


> They could of made a CGI matte painting for the engineering room and green screened everyone in front of it. Whole movies are made that way nowadays. That would have cost hardly anything considering the size of the budget. So I am not convinced it was a budgetary issue.


Yeah, or the other 'green stage' way, with some key set pieces for actors to interact with while the majority was CG.

So, clearly, J.J. was making a statement with the design. My opinion is it was just as much a giant middle finger to we 'foolish' fans as other elements. I mean, seriously, little tiny 'starfleet arrowheads' all over the uniforms because why now? OH, for texture and make it different. Yeah. OK, let's now make Army BDUs with little US ARMY logos in place of the digicamo stuff. That'll show everyone!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Cleeaaarly...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

You guys know JJ Abrams better than his mother...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jbond said:


> Cleeaaarly...


Yeah, I know. What, there isn't a sarcasm smiley? 

I think ya might have missed the part where I said 'opinion'. So, OK, here's how I got to that opinion.

Art design is a statement. Stuff in a movie, the way things look, doesn't just happen, it isn't 'just because'.

Even if the only reasoning is "it looked cool", that's a statement. 

They could have shot in the generator room at any large dam. That would have been just as 'impressive', right? Again, they could have 'green stage' the scenes for likely less money then going on location. It takes a good amount of logistics to shoot in a place like that, setting the lights, all the extras, blah blah blah.

They chose to shoot in a brewery. Ha, Ha, Scotty is 'famous' for being drunk-a**. It's a joke within a joke, geddit? Doesn't matter if that's the stated intent, the fact it's so EASY to go there says something. 

J.J. was pretty outspoken about not wanting to have anything to do with 'established' Trek, yet he still had to make a Star Trek movie. It seems that there were instances where Paramount imposed upon his vision. It's well known we fans are a sensitive and prickly lot and the pre-release vibe didn't sit well, so yeah. I suspect there was a bit of 'up yours' in some of the choices he made.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

Steve H said:


> It's well known we fans are a sensitive and prickly lot...


Sensitive and prickly? Us?? Why we're some of the most sympathetic, understanding, and patient folks you could ever meet! Well, except maybe a certain Admiral we all know. He can be prickly. Just a little. But that's just because he's so um...passionate...yeah, that's it, passionate about the subject!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm not prickly! Now shut up and get off my lawn!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

John P said:


> I'm not prickly! Now shut up and get off my lawn!



It's MY lawn! You built your darn fence over the property line and I never said anything to be neighborly! Ya dang thief!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Opinions are opinions, I just think yours is misinformed. Shooting greenscreen CONVINCINGLY is not easy or cheap, particularly with the amount of camera movement Abrams designed into his shots. Movie locations need to be affordable, versatile and accessible and the brewery location was all three--it was able to function not only as the engineering set but as the entryway to the Enterprise shuttlebay, "communications bay" as well as for most of the non-bridge interiors of the Kelvin, and it was located inside Los Angeles. 
I seriously doubt anyone in the production thought much about whether a small contingent of fans was going to be outraged about the use of that location. And as I said, I would be perfectly happy to see that location used again if it saved money for more important uses in the next film. It's only a movie.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The problem with that set is that, to anyone who's ever worked in that sort of environment, it PULLS US OUT OF THE MOVIE.

Imagine that you redressed your local shopping mall to represent the interior of the ship. And then showed that film to a person who'd never seen a shopping mall. They might be convinced and think it was "cool." But for you, you'd recognize all the familiar trappings of your favorite shopping center and it wouldn't be "the enterprise" to you, it would be "right in front of the Shoemax, next to the bookstore."

That's the problem. For Abrams and his team, "industrial sites" are unfamiliar. And evidently, to some of you guys, they're unfamiliar as well. My guess? Those of you who are responding to this so "anti-complainer" types have never set foot in an actual production facility of any kind. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, of course.

I'm an engineer. Although the majority of what I've done has been related to R&D, most of my jobs over the years have been colocated with the production facilities, and I've spend large amounts of time on factory floors. And a large percentage of the American public have jobs in that sort of environment.

For those of us who've been in that sort of environment, this was about as far from being "futuristic" as is possible. The shopping mall would be LESS jarring than a factory floor is.

Abrams had likely never set foot in a factory before, so it was all "new and cool" to him. He, and his team, were hobbled by their ignorance of this aspect of life, and as a result, ended up pulling many members of the audience out of their ability to "believe" (even for the moment) that this was a spaceship they were looking at.

If it didn't have that effect, and if you HAVE worked in an industrial environment, please, chime in, though. But if "factories" seem alien and strange to you, and you live in a place where the people you saw the movie with also have no experience with factories, well... you really can't judge this.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

This just smells of reverse snobbery: "Brother, those Hollywood types have never done an honest day's work in their life and have no idea what a factory looks like!" You know NOTHING about these people. You don't know where and how they grew up, what their experiences are or what they've seen or haven't seen.
I grew up in an industrial town in Ohio; I've been inside and worked in plenty of factories. I was able to recognize the shots that were done inside an industrial facility, and it pulled me out of the movie--for TWO SECONDS, after which I figured out that yes, they'd filmed some of the movie on location in some industrial facility, probably for budget considerations, and then I went back to enjoying the movie. I didn't spend the next two years stewing about it and taking it as a personal insult, for heaven's sake.
Sadly we can't poll the entire audience that watched the movie to see what percentage of people left the film shaking their heads, shocked and hurt that some of it had been filmed in a brewery. I'm guessing it was quite a small percentage.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

"hobbled by their ignorance of this aspect of life"....wow. Just wow. Those poor, poor miserable souls who haven't had the benefit of your magnificent experience of life...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Whether you're familiar with factories and industrial sites or not it was a stupid and blatantly cheap effort to use a brewery for a far future engine room. It didn't fool anyone. But then the whole film is a blatant pandering to tired and often erroneous cliches.

This is one of those films that was just another sensation of the moment, but in years to come will be looked upon by many with embarrassment.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

As stupid as the engine room was, I have to admit (I bet) 99% percent of the audience didn't know, or care if they did. This film was not made for Sci Fi fans much less Star Trek fans.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Solium said:


> As stupid as the engine room was, I have to admit (I bet) 99% percent of the audience didn't know, or care if they did. This film was not made for Sci Fi fans much less Star Trek fans.


Then just who was this made for? If someone hasn't the least bit of interest in sic-fi or Trek then who is going to bother seeing it? Just where did you get your 99% figure from?

SF in film has been hugely successful over the years in giving us visions of the future. A stunt like this _might_ have fooled someone decades ago, but it wasn't likely to fool anyone or at least more than a few people today.

It's hilarious actually that SF films made decades ago look more futuristic than ST09. :lol:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> *Then just who was this made for?* If someone hasn't the least bit of interest in sic-fi or Trek then who is going to bother seeing it? Just where did you get your 99% figure from?
> 
> SF in film has been hugely successful over the years in giving us visions of the future. A stunt like this _might_ have fooled someone decades ago, but it wasn't likely to fool anyone or at least more than a few people today.
> 
> It's hilarious actually that SF films made decades ago look more futuristic than ST09. :lol:


Same folks that gave Transformers a 400 billion(?) dollar profit. Average film goers that just want a fast, flashy, brainless summer popcorn flick to go see. Do you really think 99% of the Transformers demographic are "Giant Robot" fans? 99% pecent of the audience couldn't care less if the theme was giant robots or 10 feet tall blue people.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ And *THAT* is the biggest thing that ST09 got wrong: that it was mindless. Because even when it faltered TOS was not mindless.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

No, the brewery isn't very convincing at all and it can "take you out of the movie". Perhaps if Abrams and co. weren't so concerned with wasting money on stupid little stuff (CGing Robo-cop's mask) they might have had a little more left in the coffer for a proper engine room.

That said, I think using various types of surplus industrial or naval machinery to essentially 'kitbash' an engine room isn't a bad idea and would've been more effective; in my opinion it could have led to a fresh take on the look of Trek. But the design ethos would've had to have been reflected throughout the sets (like the Kelvin) and clearly it wasn't.

Hopefully they'll build an _actual_ set for the sequel, so us "haters" can have one less thing to gripe about. :wave:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> The problem with that set is that, to anyone who's ever worked in that sort of environment, it PULLS US OUT OF THE MOVIE.
> 
> Imagine that you redressed your local shopping mall to represent the interior of the ship. And then showed that film to a person who'd never seen a shopping mall. They might be convinced and think it was "cool." But for you, you'd recognize all the familiar trappings of your favorite shopping center and it wouldn't be "the enterprise" to you, it would be "right in front of the Shoemax, next to the bookstore."
> 
> ...


I agree with this.

My Grandfather was an engineer, and thanks to him I got to see some pretty amazing stuff. I've always admired well crafted things, be they an elegant engineering solution to a problem to stagecraft and set design. 

Yes, the brewery set pulled me completely out of the movie. It looked wrong. It didn't fit the design esthetics for the rest of the ship. 

A movie like Alien, you could get away with that. Dark, smoke, MORE pipes and so on, it works, because that was different. Not Star Trek, even a total relaunch. 

It was lazy. Doesn't matter how cheap it was to shoot there, MOST of the cost was manpower and I have no doubt it took a lot of man-hours to fix the brewery the way J.J. wanted it. It just didn't work for me. Add on top of it it's a punchline for a "Oh that Scotty is a doofus" gag (not as bad as ST V but close, close) and man, just added to my unenjoyment of the film.

Which is a shame, I admit, because I said it before and I'll say it here, the CAST was fine. Some better then others but overall? I was happy with them. I just wish they had a real Star Trek script to work with.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think the film will be remembered for reinventing Kirk, Spock and McCoy for a modern audience--no one's going to remember the plot, but I hardly think it's going to be thought of as an embarrassment. And it's certainly no more embarrassing than any of the previous Trek movies. Even revered The Wrath of Khan used shots of people adjusting an 80s stereo system to stand in for a futuristic control panel. All the Trek movies have been made on a budget. I would still rather watch Abrams' Trek again than TMP (possibly the single most disappointing movie experience I've ever had), Insurrection or Nemesis.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

And so much for the QMx thread.....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jbond said:


> I think the film will be remembered for reinventing Kirk, Spock and McCoy for a modern audience--no one's going to remember the plot, but I hardly think it's going to be thought of as an embarrassment. And it's certainly no more embarrassing than any of the previous Trek movies. Even revered The Wrath of Khan used shots of people adjusting an 80s stereo system to stand in for a futuristic control panel. All the Trek movies have been made on a budget. I would still rather watch Abrams' Trek again than TMP (possibly the single most disappointing movie experience I've ever had), Insurrection or Nemesis.


Yeesh! TMP is sheer rocket science compared to ST09. And the TMP refit _E, _inside and out, looks far better and more convincingly futuristic than the _JJprise._


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Tiberious said:


> And so much for the QMx thread.....


It all happened before, and it will all happen again.


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

Tiberious said:


> And so much for the QMx thread.....


 
And you're suprised why ?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Whether you're familiar with factories and industrial sites or not it was a stupid and blatantly cheap effort to use a brewery for a far future engine room. It didn't fool anyone. But then the whole film is a blatant pandering to tired and often erroneous cliches.


Sadly, this sort of Hollywood filmmaker laziness is all too common -- and it's nothing new!

Case in point: I watched _You Only Live Twice_ tonight. It's always been one of my favorite Bond films, but after reading this thread I've decided it sucks. Why? Because the filmmakers carelessly elected to use stock footage of a Gemini liftoff (complete with foreground palm tree) to depict, _get this_, the launch of a Russian spacecraft! 

That's right... rather than include an expensive miniature FX shot to more accurately depict the Soviet-era launch, the craven filmmakers elected to _play it cheap_ in the hopes that audiences would be so taken with the film's otherwise appealing cast, story and production value that they'd give the "blatantly cheap" Gemini stock footage a pass. 

The lazy, pandering, Real Life-deprived Hollywood _fiends_! Is it any wonder the early Bond films are now considered loathsome, cheap, lazy and embarrassing by film fans the world over?

And to think I used to be entertained by the James Bond movies! Thank you HobbyTalk for showing me how to pointlessly suck every ounce of fun out of a film that vast numbers of reasonably smart people seem to enjoy.

:thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

You know, if it doesn't bother you... good for you.

I'm serious. If you are one of those who are able to fully immerse yourself in the enjoyment of a film which throws things in your face, basically shouting "THIS IS FAKE" constantly, you probably get more enjoyment from films than most people do.

But... what right do you have to criticize those who aren't as gifted with the ability to ignore blatant bull as you seem to be?

Yes, "you only live twice" showed a rocket, and it's very likely that at least 5% of the viewing audience for that film recognized that this was a contemporary American rocket. Of course, this was on-screen for mere seconds, not for several extended scenes.

If this sort of thing doesn't bother you... be happy that you can divorce yourself from reason as easily as you can. But many other people aren't gifted with your ability to shut down whatever level of critical thinking you possess.

Consider that a handicap if you wish... but those people, unlike you, are actually BOTHERED by a supposedly "immersive" movie where there are such blatantly BS elements.

This sort of "this isn't real, audience" stuff can work... just see the movie "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," for example. But unless we're categorizing ST'09 as part of the same genre as the View Askewniverse, the same set of rules probably shouldn't apply, should they?


Carson Dyle said:


> Sadly, this sort of Hollywood filmmaker laziness is all too common -- and it's nothing new!
> 
> Case in point: I watched _You Only Live Twice_ tonight. It's always been one of my favorite Bond films, but after reading this thread I've decided it sucks. Why? Because the filmmakers carelessly elected to use stock footage of a Gemini liftoff (complete with foreground palm tree) to depict, _get this_, the launch of a Russian spacecraft!
> 
> ...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That brewery takes me out of the picture just like the nearby Tillman plant makes me want to hold my nose every time I see it on TNG. :lol:










Part of the fun for me in watching TV shows and movies is spotting the locations where they were shot. I'll look at the screen and think "Damn, I was standing in that very spot just the other day".


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> That brewery takes me out of the picture just like the nearby Tillman plant makes me want to hold my nose every time I see it on TNG. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually see that shot as a great example of how to do it "right." They didn't use the building, unchanged... instead, they dressed it up with matte work and so forth. And it's one of those sites that very few people would be familiar with at all.

Re: "holding your nose"... are you saying that this is something along the lines of a sewage treatment plant?

Another great example of this was how they did "Miranda" in the movie "Serenity." Yes, the stuff was largely shot in a walkway at a high school, and at a shopping center which was not yet occupied. But they managed to make it unrecognizable, and also dwelled on the storytelling, not the location, so it wasn't all that relevant. Nothing "jumped out and hit you in the face" (like, say, leaving up the trophy case and bulletin board at the High School would have!)

Nothing wrong with using real-world locations... as long as you take care to ensure that the audience isn't going to recognize them as what they really are.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Location shooting isn't the problem. Sticking a brewery inside a futuristic spaceship is a problem.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Nothing wrong with using real-world locations... as long as you take care to ensure that the audience isn't going to recognize them as what they really are.


I was watching one old movie today called Bride of Frankenstein and realized how fake it was. You're not going to believe this, but they took out every color! All that was left was black, white and grey. It kicked me right out of the picture.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Solium said:


> Location shooting isn't the problem. Sticking a brewery inside a futuristic spaceship is a problem.


_*We have a winnah!! :thumbsup:

*_I wonder if JJ & Co. are aware that large breweries, like Anheuser-Busch, give public tours, and lots of people go on these tours. So there are plenty of people who know full well what the inside of a brewery looks like, and immediately recognized those fermentation tanks.

Besides, as was pointed out in RedLetterMedia's review of the movie, what happens if the brewery goes out of business or is sold to somebody else who doesn't want to let JJ come in and make another space movie? Or, they upgrade the plant so that it looks significantly different than it did before? They wind up having to build a set anyway, so they would've been a lot better off building an engineering set that actually *LOOKS* like a 23rd century engine room in the first frelling place.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

As a filmmaker myself, I'm of the opinion that using the brewery to depict the engineering set wasn't where the gaff occurred, rather... it was HOW the producer/director chose to use it. Tight, unrevealing medium and close shots would have been a far more effective way to use the brewery. Those sweeping wide shots are what scream CHEAT to me. 75% of filmmaking is what you DON'T show, and frankly, Abrams showed too much of that particular location.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

OMG, if they can't use the brewery, they'll have to CHANGE THE SET...which they do in practically every Star Trek movie.

I do agree that TMP was "rocket science" however--rocket science happens to make for an extremely dull movie.

I'm really overreacting to all this because it makes perfect sense that on a scale modeling forum people are more interested in minutia than the big picture. What's irksome is the idea that the mass audience that made the movie a hit was subject to the same reactions. And the presumption that the filmmakers "didn't know what the inside of a factory looked like" is patently absurd. Even if, as is probably being imagined here, these pampered filmmakers lived some sort of bubble boy existence with only TV and movies to tell them about the outside world, they'd have been hard pressed to have never seen any TV episodes or movie scenes that took place INSIDE A FACTORY. Nor have as many "average Americans" worked in a factory as some of you imagine.

I'm looking forward to the next Trek movie to see what outrages it can unleash on humanity...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jbond said:


> I do agree that TMP was "rocket science" however--rocket science happens to make for an extremely dull movie.


And this is wrong. TMP's flaw certainly wasn't in its production or f/x aspects. It's flaw was that they didn't have enough character dynamics, more conflict and drama between characters. Sadly it would have been an easy thing to fix if someone had stepped back and seen it and had the time and forethought to fix it before they got too far along with the production.

There's never anything wrong with striving to get things right. But a film or television episode has to be firing on all cylinders for everything to work together.

Candidly, though, I think TMP, particularly the DE version, is a vastly better film than ST09 for the simple reason that it doesn't insult my intelligence and the characters are who those we've known for so long. ST09 is mindless fluff and also shat on all the characters I've liked for so long. Whereas TOS made an effort to bring an element of credibility to its universe ST09 threw all sense of credibility out the window. The _JJprise_ aside the way they wrote nuKirk and directed Chris Pine to portray him symbolizes so much of what I dislike about ST09. Instead of being a tip-of-the-hat to TOS it was a big gob of spit.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I loved it and can't wait to see the next installment!!! Finally looking forward to Trek again these days. I like this ship...it's exciting!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Larva said:


> As a filmmaker myself, I'm of the opinion that using the brewery to depict the engineering set wasn't where the gaff occurred, rather... it was HOW the producer/director chose to use it. Tight, unrevealing medium and close shots would have been a far more effective way to use the brewery. Those sweeping wide shots are what scream CHEAT to me. 75% of filmmaking is what you DON'T show, and frankly, Abrams showed too much of that particular location.


Exactly what I was saying.

Red Dwarf, which was a relatively low-budget BBC "Sci-fi comedy," is a great example of the use of industrial locations. They never let you SEE the location sufficiently clearly that you'd recognize the specifics. The emphasis was always on the people, the "foreground," and the other stuff was lit and shot in such a way that it was just "background noise" in the image.

TNG used a series of locations in CA to shoot planetside locations. But while you might recognize a terrace or a walkway, this would then be masked by the use of extensive matte work. There was enough "different" that you weren't really pulled out of the sequence.

Lots of flicks have done this sort of thing, to fine effect. The problem is that elements which were BLATANTLY OBVIOUS were allowed to be used with virtually no change except for vinyl applique decals and a few "blinky light" plant-ons here and there.

Now... imagine if they'd just brought in some DRY WALL and build some "bulkheads" in various locations... put in pressure doors every so often... "broke up" the space, in other words. You know, like you'd do in a real naval or space craft (big open spaces are a general no-no... if anyone doesn't see why, feel free to ask, of course, and I'll be glad to explain my reasoning).

They could have used the "industrial stuff" as the basis for some believable sets. Imagine, for example, if they'd done something using big "tubes" (along the lines of the TMP engine shaft) in front of and between the fermentation vats... so that the vats were just "in the background, and thus less recognizable. Just hang some big blue tarps to allow you to "matte in" physical walls more "spaceworth" than the corrugated thin steel used in the factory, if you need a "long shot" where more of the room is visible.

You could have done something along the lines of the TOS engine room, with those big vats being PART of that room, as long as they weren't the MAIN element of that room. Hide their purpose a bit and it's far, far less objectionable.

Again, the problem is that JJ Abrams and his crew were unfamiliar with this sort of thing and thus they assumed that the audience would be unfamiliar with this sort of thing too. That was a MISTAKE, plain and simple.

Those of you who keep insisting that it wasn't a mistake... and keep "leaping to the defense" of Abrams and his team, by attacking those who are criticizing the flick... please take a step back and just consider... "if lots of people have a problem with some aspect of a movie, should the filmmaker take that into account? Or is the filmmaker a "god" and thus not subject to ever making any form of errors, and are those who criticize this "god" guilty of some form of sacrilege?

The movie had flaws. Plenty of flaws. That's not unique in the history of movie-making. Why is criticizing this one film somehow enough to get so many people's "self-defense ire" going?

Lots of people found lots of elements of this film lacking. I saw the film (once) with several coworkers at the Austin IMAX theater. As we walked out, I overheard lots of conversations. The one that struck home most to me was a group of college-age kids who were talking about how "anyone who likes Star Trek is gonna hate this flick." These weren't fans, mind you, they just went to see a flick. But the one thing that struck home to them was clearly how it "breaks star trek." I didn't hear one conversation, then or since then, anywhere except for the internet, where anyone has actually said "I really loved it."

What I have heard is a number of people talking about it as though it was an "OK movie" because they knew I was a Star Trek fan, and they were trying to be diplomatic. And when I said that I didn't like it myself, they became much more open about their criticisms. This started with my group of coworkers, but it's been pretty much a constant since then.

Outside of two sites on the internet, I don't know anyone who actually says that this was a "really great movie." I do know several folks who said that it was "sort of fun." But that's the highest praise I've heard.

And I've heard a LOT of people talk about the bad set design. Actually, the brewery isn't the most criticized element, though. The "glaringly painful to the eyes" bridge set is the one that most people raise a stink over. They raise the issue even more about the Kelvin bridge, though... that opening sequence, walking onto the bridge of the Kelvin, was enough that some people I know complain about eyestrain from just looking at that stuff.

You can love the movie, overall, and still be critical of the art direction on the film. You're not required... no, really, you're not required... to be absolutely fawningly obsequious about anything that ever gets put out with these two words associated with it.

The problem with the art direction, both from Abrams and from his subordinates (and in terms of set design, we're talking about Scott Chambliss, mainly), was that they underestimated the audience.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Just Plain Al said:


> And you're suprised why ?


No, not surprised.....disappointed might be more accurate. The QMx models deserve discussion. I wish someone could give a hands-on review (assuming they ever see the light of day) with pictures not staged by the manufacturer. I won't pay 5k, but am considering a commissioned build and would like to compare the quality.

Anyhow, I'll not further interrupt the brewery battles 

Tib


----------

