# New Enterprise - Whaddya think?



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's see how the opinions are here.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Dude, This is a HUMONGOUS can of worms - you sure you want to open it?

Larry

P.S.- THe new ship sucks, IMHO.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Opening humongous cans of worms is what the internet is all about. :devil:

Don't forget to vote.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

This was not your intention Capt April, but if you look at your poll, there are four categories for people who don't like the ship and two for the those who do like the ship. When looking at the bar graph, this tends to visually make it seem that those who dislike the ship are in the minority. They're doing the same thing in various polls on the forum of the official movie site, but I think over there it may not be unintentional.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

On the superthread that was slammed shut, someone
brought up the design incongruities.
The primary hull is a nice mechanical dish/saucer.
The engineering hull, and warp nacelles have an organic
quality.
The two styles do not mesh.

I don't like it.

Why can't they just _try_ the original design? If it fails, then they
can reimagine her.

But it all comes down to the story. If there is a good story to be 
told, the set decorations can be accepted.
If we get a movie as good as "the Final Frontier", the new ship 
might be the first to go.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

To boldly go back to the drawing board!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

(lol) Even if they wanted to, there's no way to re-create the abysmal disgrace which was 'The Final Frontier'! I don't think _anybody_ posting here will argue that.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*mikephys* posted:


> This was not your intention Capt April, but if you look at your poll, there are four categories for people who don't like the ship and two for the those who do like the ship. When looking at the bar graph, this tends to visually make it seem that those who dislike the ship are in the minority. They're doing the same thing in various polls on the forum of the official movie site, but I think over there it may not be unintentional.


These should take you to some of those polls:

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?p=117075&posted=1#post117075

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4028


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

It's been mentioned on other threads/other forums that that this single picture that has been released (and leaving the trailer out of it for the moment) is NOT the best picture and has been admitted to give a distorted view of the ship.

One picture does not a starship make - but this ship as we see is NOT the beloved Classic E. I know this point has been made rather forcefully at times but just so that no one is confused with my POV.

I voted "can live with it" - for now! I want to see more and in this case, the trailer only gives us a few tantalizing tidbits of what the ship actually looks like in an undistorted, if quick fleeting views!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

I said it before: I can live wiht it and look past theIEnterprise and iBridge IF the characters are right! If any of the new actors fails to get it right, primarely Kirk, Spock and McCoy this movie is in BIG trouble!


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

JeffG said:


> (lol) Even if they wanted to, there's no way to re-create the abysmal disgrace which was 'The Final Frontier'! I don't think _anybody_ posting here will argue that.


Hey, I _liked_ that film. For the most part...


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Well... 'iEnterprise' is too much of a mouthful for me. I simply call it the Pre-Fit.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The new one looks awkward, ungainly and lacks any apparent sense of logic to it. It doesn't look visually balanced either. The forward part of the nacelles are way oversized for example and the shape of the secondary hull is off as well.

Although I didn't like the 1701D initially I could still see it's evolutionary logic and it looked integrated with its own sense of logic (other than the TOS _E_, the refit and the 1701D the rest of the E's are just crap). As such the D became somewhat more acceptable.

This new _thing_ is just a hack job.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Hate it with a passion


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Fuuuugleeeeeeee!!!!!


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

If it is a good movie, I can live with the new designs. That said, I would have preferred the TOS Enterprise if only because it fits the time period the story is supposed to take place in.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

My take on ships; I like the new design from what I've seen so far, really like TOS Enterprise (a no brainer), the Refit, NX-01, Defiant, the 'D' is okay from certain angles-not crazy about it. The 'E' is good but runs the risk of trying to look too cool and swoopy. But my favorite ship; the Millennium Falcon. I still scratch my head at how they got something that strange and beat up to look so damn cool. It literally does look like a space hot rod and the way they pumped up the bass in the remastered DVD's when it goes by-it feels like a hot rod!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I like the design and can get used to this being the Enterprise. Just as I and a plethora of others got used to the Refit and all other incantations of the Enterprise.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Things are what they are. I loved the film _Casino Royale,_ but I thought it didn't make much sense to reboot the franchise and start again at the beginning yet keep the same M (Judi Dench) from the Brosnan films.

I hated the _Mission Impossible_ films because they pretty much ignored what kind of storytelling the original series was. They even went so far as to make the original Phelps lead character a double agent. No wonder Peter Graves turned down the chance to do a cameo.

And so you can't assert that "this is how things began" with _Star Trek_ and yet make such obvious drastic changes in look and continuity. And I seriously don't believe they will supposedly honour the spirit of TOS as they claim. From everything I've heard concerning spoilers and the trailer as well as the first images it's quite apparent this is not going to be the kind of _Star Trek_ we knew and loved but its own thing in a contemporary sensibility.

And TOS' spirit can be revisited even if things are drastically different--best example being _Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World_ and the A&E _Hornblower_ TV Movies.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Things are what they are. I loved the film _Casino Royale,_ but I thought it didn't make much sense to reboot the franchise and start again at the beginning yet keep the same M (Judi Dench) from the Brosnan films.
> 
> I hated the _Mission Impossible_ films because they pretty much ignored what kind of storytelling the original series was. They even went so far as to make the original Phelps lead character a double agent. No wonder Peter Graves turned down the chance to do a cameo.
> 
> ...


Warped9, I agree with your points and always thought those incongruities were strange. I think QOS gives us more insight into this than just a trailer, though. My opinion - I think this new Trek is for the outside world more than for the american audience. QOS has done $300 mil, mostly through mostly foreign markets (though just released in the US). The DaVinci Code did way more outside the United States. Superman returns was the same. Increasingly, Hollywood is having to broaden its market. What better way to do that than sellout one of the most popular TV franchises of all time. I think that was JJ's pitch to the execs...

I don't care that they changed most things (it may not be the film for me) but call it what it is - 
a 're-imagining'.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

The design elements in this movie are really growing on me. Seeing Enterprise in motion in the trailer really impressed me. 

I think this movie will rock. But its definitely not going to please everyone.


----------



## Klaa (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm just going to refer to this new "E" as the S.S. Binks.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> (lol) Even if they wanted to, there's no way to re-create the abysmal disgrace which was 'The Final Frontier'! I don't think _anybody_ posting here will argue that.


Yeah, that movie had plenty of problems. I'll say this for it, though: It had heart. Contrast that with Nemesis, which should've been a fine movie, but something was just lacking at its core. It had no heart.


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

You can take all of the poles you like, it doesn't matter the film has already been made, the die is cast, this is the new Version of the Enterprise, hate it, love it, but you better start getting use to it because this is it! I like the design, it's as close to the original design as it's going to get. BTW I saw the trailer on the big screen, She looks great!:wave:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

originally posted by Captain_April:


> You can take all of the _polls_ you like, it doesn't matter, the film has already been made, the die is cast, this is the new version of the Enterprise, hate it, love it, but you better start getting use to it because this is it!


Isn't it just a computer generated image? Can't Paramount make
a new ship and insert it into the movie?


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Nah, it's way too late for them to change the graphics. Not to mention the millions of dollars it would cost them to scrap the existing design and footage.

Larry


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

It's not the Enterprise.

Paramount may want to make this garbage, but I don't have to consume it!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Edge said:


> It's not the Enterprise.
> 
> Paramount may want to make this garbage, but I don't have to consume it!


No you don't and you don't have to see the film either


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain_April said:


> I like the design, it's as close to the original design as it's going to get. BTW I saw the trailer on the big screen, She looks great!:wave:


Agreed. I am not 100 percent wowed by the new design, but I certainly like it, and since seeing it some action in the new trailer, I am liking it even more.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

If you don't like it, move on I guess. Just like millions of people did with "Craigisnotbond". Oh hang on, they all came quietly back in their own time...

I am not hugely keen on this ship design, but I'm shrugging my shoulders on this one. Trek as we know it is dead - it had its day; we just have to get our heads round that in the same way the Galactica crowd did. 
Just be glad you didn't live in the UK and have to see what they did to the inside of the Tardis on Doctor Who. Now that _really_ hacks me off!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Flux Chiller said:


> Trek as we know it is dead - it had its day; we just have to get our heads round that in the same way the Galactica crowd did.


Amen, brother.

TOS died. 
Then came TNG. And it found a fan base.
TNG died. 
Then came .. er ...

Well, if the new cast is young enough, and the scripts work, then maybe the franchise will be revived again.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'd expect "heavy on the action" and rather "thin on internal story logic." It might well have today's sense of over hyperactive sensibility to it. Style over smarts is often the name of the game today.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Sadly, that's likely true. Still, you can pack a good story in with some heavy action, so I don't have a problem w/that aspect of things.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

51% of our little community don't really care much for the new ship so far.

Interesting if not scientific.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The new one looks awkward, ungainly and lacks any apparent sense of logic to it. It doesn't look visually balanced either. The forward part of the nacelles are way oversized for example and the shape of the secondary hull is off as well.
> 
> Although I didn't like the 1701D initially I could still see it's evolutionary logic and it looked integrated with its own sense of logic (other than the TOS _E_, the refit and the 1701D the rest of the E's are just crap). As such the D became somewhat more acceptable.
> 
> This new _thing_ is just a hack job.


Can't agree with you more, sir!:thumbsup: Very well stated!


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

It's almost like they gave several boxed models to a 2-year old, and this is the result

It's not the only reason I'm not going to see the film - even when it comes out on DVD - but it's one of several reasons


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Yesterday I had a conversation with a younger coworker after he had raised the issue. He'd seen the new design, knew I had an interest in _Star Trek_ and science fiction in general and wondered what I thought of the new ship design.

We've had similar conversations before. Yet he was still a little surprised to hear me say I didn't like the new design.

But it brought an issue to clarity. Our aesthetic sensibilities become accustomed to certain perspectives. For example: old cars some of us grew up with and we accepted as normal looking can now sometimes look off in proportions and other aspects because we've now gradually become accustomed to newer approaches to design and styling.

Science fiction in the popular mediums has always had a generic look to it that evolved over time. In the '20s-'30s we had art deco, phallic like rocket ships and lots of big knobs and levers and hard metal. In the '40s-'50s we got the shiny V2 like rocketships and flying saucer ships as well as usually ungainly looking robots. Throughout those decades we also had aliens that today like rather simple and even comical. In the '60s-70s we got the NASA influenced look that took its cue from the successful American and Soviet space programs and the very nascent computer age. In the late '70s we got _Star Wars_ and its industrial look with loads of robot debris (various model kit parts) plastered over odd and exotic shapes to lend sci-fi tech a real hardware look. And that trend has continued for the most part unto the present.

However there was an exception in this. In '66 we got _Star Trek_ and Matt Jefferies approach to design. In spite of the NASA inspired look he was quite aware of he elected to approach his design in somewhat of a more thoughtful manner and went for something different. I think this is partly why despite TOS' constraints in budget, time and resources the show often managed to seem so credible.

MJ's designs reflected a very real world aspect of our societies and our nature. Whenever we become proficient with a technology we inevitably begin to apply aesthetic elements to our tools and constructs. Notice how something as utterly utilitarian and mundane as eating utensils often have artistic patterns in their handles. Or the great diversity in car design and styling. And the fashion industry. And practically every aspect of our lives throughout history.

Look at the industrial machines of the 19th century--huge steam powered engines that still had artistic elements added to them.

We always do it. Now imagine a far future society that has mastered star travel and starship engineering and construction to the point that without thinking they impart aesthetic considerations to their vessels. The starship looks the way it does not only out of "form follows function," but also because the race that created it is expressing itself and its sense of self. The ship is meant to look inspiring and majestic as built by a race looking forward and outward and aspiring to better than what they have and what they've known.

Even military hardware down through the ages reflects aesthetic considerations even though it's meant to be purely functional.

This might have been an unwitting part of MJ's approach to design, but it is there in his work. He didn't design things just to look good--he strived for some measure of credibility to his ideas that made the fantastic seem more within reach and more acceptable.

This approach is what I think sets _Star Trek_ TOS apart from most other SF in the visual media. They strived to convey TOS' hardware in a believable manner rather than just going for something visually appealing. The rest of Trek that followed TOS benefited to some extent because of what TOS had established.

But _Star Wars_ comes along and has since dominated the look of SF. It even influenced the look of Trek ever increasingly as time passed from the '80s onward.

MJ was trying to look at things as best as he could from a genuine far future perspective rather than just layering a contemporary flavour onto a odd looking shape.

TOS' constraints in f/x resources often actually served to get things more right than wrong. Usually not seeing two combating starships in the same frame underlined the idea that these ships were believably hundreds and thousands of miles apart and maneuvering at unholy speeds. The ships were never shown moving in acrobatic "dog fight" fashion _a la Star Wars_ because that's not how real spacecraft would move in space. By accident or design this all enhanced TOS' general sense of sci-tech credibility.

Another issue brought into clarity during my conversation with my coworker yesterday underlines why the _Star Wars_ approach is so successful: the majority of the audience is not critical or scientifically conversant enough to worry about. If it looks and sounds good then that's enough to rake in the cash.

And the "dumbed down" approach is prevalent in the vast majority of film and television work. It isn't that most people will disagree with you when you raise your own criticisms, it's just that they usually aren't considering those things when it comes to escapist entertainment. They aren't concerned whether their entertainment has any measure of credibility or logic to it because that's not the level of awareness they're at when watching the screen--that part of their brain is dormant.

And the advance of CGI has also served to make violating the laws of physics even easier and still somehow look real. We see this not only in sci-fi, superhero and fantasy works but contemporary action films as well.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^So, even if I get a black belt in karate, I won't be able to move like the characters in _The Matrix?_


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes. Yes you will.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I posted 2 nice screenshots here late last night - one composite image of the under contruction shot and one head on shot showing blue glowing nacelle caps:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2587588&postcount=244


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That "under construction" image is the most flattering I've seen so far.


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

Well, at least it's a good sci-fi movie if you do not look at it through star trek eyes. They re-muddled battlestar, it was inevidable.. Hopefully they won't make a new series from it!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I don't see anything wrong with the new Enterprise. I don't see anything wrong with the trailer and I expect the movie to be a good one. In fact, I like the new Enterprise. And, I think the new Enterprise probably show a stronger resemblance to the TOS ship than the Refit Enterprise from _The Motion Picture_ did.

I'm also quite shocked at all the negativity here. Or maybe not.

Huzz


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Oh, I really love that new under construction shot.

Read my post 239# here (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=232143&page=16) and onward. I proposed a theory explaining why things don't just look non-canon, they are done as new-canon on purpose because of the story timeline issues and could thus lead to a whole new alternate Trek universe of possibilities. Another member here also chimed in with similar ideas from people on other forums too. Warning - reading it may give possible story spoilers though if proven somewhat true!


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Steve,

Thanks for posting those two shots. The "under construction" shot has really changed my view of the new design. I was finding it hard to come to terms with. I wanted to accept it really badly, but something was holding me back. Must have been the angle of the original shot they gave us and the lack of a sense of scale. But, that new shot has given me the push I needed. she looks beautiful. The spirit of our Lady is in there 

Todd


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> 51% of our little community don't really care much for the new ship so far.
> 
> Interesting if not scientific.


What's interesting is that you seem to have overlooked the other 50 percent who either can live with the new design or are simply underwhelmed. Which is not a bad thing


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> What's interesting is that you seem to have overlooked the other 50 percent who either can live with the new design or are simply underwhelmed. Which is not a bad thing


Interesting response--if not scientific.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

prefit, i love it! lol


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Here's a thought, what if they change it between now and release date? I could see them making this design, creating a few images and putting them out for response. Wouldn't it be weird to go see the movie and find a different version of the ship?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Now that I've seen the trailer in 1080P I am 100% ok with the new Enterprise. This is a very serious, very big budget REINVENTION OF TREK. And boy, does Trek need to be reinvented, cause right now it's as dead as a doornail. 

The new E will work very well with the art design in this new vision of the Trek universe. I can't believe people who have actually seen the turd that was 'Nemesis' complaining about a new 150 million dollar Trek movie. 'I won't see it even on dvd'....what, on earth??????


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

I actually like it better than all the "refits" and the Enterprise "E"
and if the film has a good script, good acting, etc., I'll be satisfied.
As long as STAR TREK Lives...that's the whole point. If I want the original
E I've got the DVD's and my Master Replicas ship to admire! And yes,
I'm a first generation Trek geezer (geek)!!:thumbsup:


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*My biggest problem...*

Folks,

One of the most appealing things about TOS, when I was a child and even today, is the sense you were seeing a glimpse of just one part of a much larger universe. The Enterprise wasn't even the first ship of its class.

Everything we've seen of this new ship, especially indicated by the trailer, is this new Enterprise seems to be THE FIRST ONE of its kind. 

This, I find problematic. THE MENAGERIE was an incredibly clever way to utilize the first Trek pilot and integrate the footage to create a story spanning years, if not decades, broadening the history of the Trek Universe. The changes in both the exterior and interior of the ship showed a breathing, growing universe.

This new Trek throws all the characters together in one place, as if the entire story of Trek we know and loved all began and happened at the same time. Discovering Spock served on the Enterprise for eleven years under Pike before Kirk even showed up was a revelation to my young mind and told me, wow, there's a lot more here for my imagination then just what I'm seeing on the screen.

Spock used to be much older than Kirk. Now, they seem to be playing them as if they're the same age, which seems less interesting to me.

Roddenberry's original series bible states the components of the ship were built at the San Francisco navel shipyards, then assembled in space. That seemed so cool. Also, the actual design of the ship was something which could only operate in space, so seeing it being built in the cornfields of Iowa diminishes the idea of it somehow.

I also HATE the idea Spock Prime tells young Kirk how to get young Spock's goat, as if it's so easy for young Spock to lose control of his Vulcan self. It worked in "This Side of Paradise" because he was infected by alien spores. But now, you can just make Spock MAD AT YOU before taking a swing This severly diminishes his character and the character of Kirk for even doing it.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy, indeed, the rest of the Enterprise crew, were the best of "humanity," everything we on Earth today could only hope to one day be. Their nobility was what made audiences gravitate toward the franchise. 

Now, however, we're expected to believe Kirk was once a motercycle riding punk with a chip on his shoulder, who once destroyed a priceless antique car for his amusement. I don't like this characterization. I've seen it before. It doesn't fire my imagination. It doesn't make me want to BE like Kirk is.

Now, if all of this is a result of the YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISING of the TOS Universe, I can dig that. In fact, I'd think that was a pretty clever way of keeping all canon, yet rebooting the franchise. However, I'm not sure we're dealing with the kind of intelligent screenwriting which could pull this off believably.

The production design of this new incarnation of Trek seems pandering to me, as does what we've seen of the characters, to a modern, less sophisticated vision of the future.

While there is stuff to enjoy in the trailer, there's also enough to give me great pause. But, as previously pointed out, it does look like the Enterprise is racing away at one point from the same Star Fleet Headquarters shown in the Star Fleet Technical Manual.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Unfortunately that super squeaky clean nobility is what made characters from the Next Gen on about as stiff and boring as walking ironing boards. Even TOS' characters had some failings. I doubt highly though that they'll be as dysfunctional as Galactica's crew.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Maybe that's why I'm upset about this new treatment. Kirk and company were "heroes" to me. They were someone to look up to and emulate. They weren't God-like, and that was pointed out several times in TOS, but strived to hold a higher ideal. Nowadays, where can you look for role models like that? And reimagining my heroes into zeroes just isn't entertainment to me.

Larry


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I always liked the idea of a hyper-serious Kirk in the Academy: "stack of books with legs."

His career in space comes to be where he loosens up and "explores strange new women" and fires phasers and all.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Unfortunately that super squeaky clean nobility is what made characters from the Next Gen on about as stiff and boring as walking ironing boards. Even TOS' characters had some failings. I doubt highly though that they'll be as dysfunctional as Galactica's crew.


Picard boring? 
Riker boring? 
Data boring? 
Sisko boring?
The doctor boring? 

Pardon me but you are over simplifying to aid your point that Trek needs to change! The real problem of Trek of late was: 

- Too many situations where solved in the last 5 minutes of the episode using some lame technobabble ala Geordies famous recurring “we need to invert the phase inducers / couplings to…” or similar things with the other engineers. Instead of leaving it to the next episode to solve the issue. 

- rewriting it’s own history to catch the eye of lost fans. That’s especially true for ENT, but I won’t go into that now. 

- Once discovered, new technology fails all of a sudden (slipstream drive) and is NEVER ever tried to rebuild or enhance it while other technology is completely forgotten about (metphasic shielding would be handy for anyone no?) even if it could solve current episodes problem. 

- especially with VOY the conflict between Marquis and Starfleet crew is settled too fast. 

- recurring “alien of the week” plots.

- sudden character changes to get more “soap opera” like (like Seven falling in love with Chekotay…wtf?... or Trip and T'Pols love affair).

- Instead of clever story telling how to outsmart the bad guy action replaces everything (NEM is the arch symbol for this) 

In short all things that where changed to make Star Trek more “mass compatible” so John and Jane Doe did not need to know previous episodes to understand the current one. And what once brought Star Trek on its knees is now supposed to help it up again… what irony.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

"Maquis."
No R.
Two different words that mean two different things.

Go ahead, Jeff, let me have it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I couldn't agree more with you on the whole techno-babble routine, but with the exceptions of Picard and Riker, the crew were largely stiff and unrealistic seeming characters to a fault-Data had an excuse; he was an android. I will say this though; the portrayals in TOS were never as lifeless as the next gen era and I think that comes from the attempt to make them too perfect and 'good'. 

For that matter, even the alien races were usually bland and spoke perfect Shakespearean english for the most part. But largely, if someone can't see where many (not all) of those characters were stiff, monotone cardboard cutouts, I'd suggest watching something other than Trek for a change.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

John P said:


> "Maquis."
> No R.
> Two different words that mean two different things.
> 
> Go ahead, Jeff, let me have it.


Who...me!?!:thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

John P said:


> "Maquis."
> No R.
> Two different words that mean two different things.
> 
> Go ahead, Jeff, let me have it.


You do know that there are ppl here who’s mother language is NOT English do you? Be tolerant


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> You do know that there are ppl here who’s mother language is NOT English do you? Be tolerant


I always hated the name, "Maquis." Couldn't they have made it something a little more distinguishable from "Marquis?" After all, spoken in French, to an American ear, there's very little difference between the words. Anyways, stupid, stupid name choice.

I always try to keep in mind one's language of origin. Your problem, Garbaron, is that you're so GOOD at English, people here tend to think that your _first_ language is English. So, in effect, criticisms of your posts are high compliments:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Garbaron said:


> You do know that there are ppl here who’s mother language is NOT English do you? Be tolerant


Maquis and Marquis are both French words.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I always hated the name, "Maquis." Couldn't they have made it something a little more distinguishable from "Marquis?" After all, spoken in French, to an American ear, there's very little difference between the words. Anyways, stupid, stupid name choice.


Really? 'Cause I never had any trouble. There's a big ol' "R" in one of them, and not in the other.

You know where the name Maquis comes from, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(World_War_II)
Very logical choice, actually.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well ok you two then I take it as a compliment


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I always liked the idea of a hyper-serious Kirk in the Academy: "stack of books with legs."
> 
> His career in space comes to be where he loosens up and "explores strange new women" and fires phasers and all.


Too funny!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Really? 'Cause I never had any trouble. There's a big ol' "R" in one of them, and not in the other.
> 
> You know where the name Maquis comes from, right?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(World_War_II)
> Very logical choice, actually.


To an American ear, the words _pronounced in French_ would not have the same distinquishability.

As for the earth origin of Maquis--all the more reason to NOT use the word, IMHO. Why retread everything? (And yes, I know they did it in TOS as well with "Zeon" for "Zion" and so forth--but those earth parallel stories, with maybe two exceptions, are not my favorites).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Because they did. :shrug:



> To an American ear, the words pronounced in French would not have the same distinquishability.


So who on either TNG or DS9 pronounced it in a French accent? Riker? Ro? Kira? Worf?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> Spock used to be much older than Kirk. Now, they seem to be playing them as if they're the same age, which seems less interesting to me.


Um, I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Spock was never portrayed as being especially older than Kirk. In fact, "Yesteryear" pretty much confirms that Kirk and Spock were around the same age.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> So who on either TNG or DS9 pronounced it in a French accent? Riker? Ro? Kira? Worf?


Some folks do, some don't. For that matter, an English accent or even New England stage accent can cause the same confusion.

Of course, I'm just bitter because all that taking foreign languages did was to mess up my American pronunciations of foreign words.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Um, I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Spock was never portrayed as being especially older than Kirk. In fact, "Yesteryear" pretty much confirms that Kirk and Spock were around the same age.


Correct. The ST Encyclopedia puts them at close to, but not exactly, the same age.

It was later series that got that annoying bugaboo that, because Vulcans live a long time, they _had _to be older than they looked - Tuvok being, what, 82? And T'Pol being in her 60s.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

My best friend just emailed me.Wev'e been friends since 1976 since I'm nine.He loves the Original Star Trek Dearly.Need I say the new ship sparked a very negative response with him.I can't post what he said about Abrams vision its too inappropriate and yes he's seen the second trailer.I saw everyone of the Original Star Trek movies with him and on the day they premiered.His email title for Abrams Star Trek was Dead Horse so you know where he stands.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

In May we will be reflecting back on these thoughts.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And many of us will be ready with the "I told you so"'s.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know what gets me (well, one of the things) with this latest take on _Star Trek?_ In TOS and TMP they made an effort to look genuinely forward, to look like something other than everything else that was being done at the time. Hell, TMP still looks better than the vast majority of what sci-fi has given us since. Abrahm's project is emulating the general sci-fi look that's been the convention since Star Wars in '77.

This really bugs me. Many will say that unless you have that industrial look (Microsoft interbred with an oil rig) then it won't look futuristic. Oh, Really?

Does a modern jet aircraft not look advanced because it doesn't have a prop and wing struts and looks made of canvas? Then why does a far future starship have to look like an interesting shape that mated with an offshore oil rig to look futuristic?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'll bet the designers for the original Buck Rogers thought they were ahead of the curve too back then. 'Always in motion is the future.'


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Does a modern jet aircraft not look advanced because it doesn't have a prop and wing struts and looks made of canvas? Then why does a far future starship have to look like an interesting shape that mated with an offshore oil rig to look futuristic?


Great point! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

To those who say the 1966 Enterprise won't work in a modern film because it's over 40 years old - does the Millenium Falcon still work for you? It's only 10 years younger. 

Was the 30-year-old Tantive IV's appearance in Episode III cringe-worthy? Or did it make you smile?


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

John P said:


> To those who say the 1966 Enterprise won't work in a modern film because it's over 40 years old - does the Millenium Falcon still work for you? It's only 10 years younger.
> 
> Was the 30-year-old Tantive IV's appearance in Episode III cringe-worthy? Or did it make you smile?


Of course this and Warp9's points are completely valid. Thanks for making them because I sometimes feel we are our own worst enemy with this stuff. Lets face it, modelers and Sci-Fi fans love details. TOS Enterprise didn't need many (even though we wanted to know them). TMP brings out the details but at the expense of the magic. Docking ports - TOS didn't need such. Or maybe, they could dock all over the place with some amazing tech. I thought at least viewports were better protection than Windows. Thrusters - yes our little yellow LED's look nice, don't they. Unseen, unexplained and not needed on TOS. We have never seen TOS Enterprise given a REAL movie makeover. I suspect it would look just as amazing as the breathtaking shot everyone loves in the new trailer. 

I could only imagine what she would like if they did (link to picture)...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Amen!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

MJ and the TOS production stuff meant to give us something that looked futuristic and perhaps even a touch exotic despite the constraints of '60s television production. They did it in TOS and then later in TMP. But since and lately things just look awkward and rather mundane.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Any shape properly detailed would look good on the big screen. The TOS Enterprise would look great as long as the detailing wasn't overdone. The TOS with a TMP surface detail makeover keeping the TOS shape would look great on the big screen. But I guess when making a movie the director wants to make it his own look so we get a re-imagined version of the Enterprise. That's not really a bad thing judged on its own merits, but if they would have kept the pure TOS shape with subtle added surface detailing (like the Kelvin) that would have brought tears of joy to my eyes.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Captain April said:


> And many of us will be ready with the "I told you so"'s.


You won't be one of them.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jodet said:


> You won't be one of them.


He didn't say he would be. It was left open in terms of who would be saying that.

Again, can we please be less personally antagonistic about this awful movie?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Some of us can. Some of us can't.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> He didn't say he would be. It was left open in terms of who would be saying that.
> 
> Again, can we please be less personally antagonistic about this awful movie?


You mean this wonderful move? 

Ok, let's all try....


----------

