# I Hate the JJ Prise



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

Post here for all the vehement anger and Rage against JJ Abrams and his abomination of a Star Ship!

Let all your anger flow with the contempt of lens flare!

Just keep it here and not on a Pro JJ Model Forum.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Honestly, while I somewhat understand the thinking behind these "focused" threads it also strikes me as rather childish in trying to stifle a dissenting viewpoints that can offer another perspective. Yeah, it can get get heated, but as long as it isn't directed personally as well as not assumed to be a personal attack then there should always be room for a dissenting viewpoint.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

Starting off your time here at Hobbytalk with a temp-ban, huh? Pretty daring!
Nothing seems to inspire more venom on this forum than this topic (or perhaps grid lines). Good luck keeping this thread open.
Oh yeah, and take it easy in the Starlord threads too. Almost any criticism of him will get you a trip to ban-land.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Personally, I think this is a great idea Heero. Get this subject OUT of the discussion of the upcoming kit, which IMHO should be about the kit itself (size, fit, finish, etc.) not the aesthetics, because that debat always devolves into "I love it" "I hate it" repeated ad infinitum.

If it were me, I'd have done a single thread to let both sides go at each other while those who want to avoid it can simply not read the thread. But it works the way you set it up.


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

Lol, I'm not trying to get banned!

I just figured I would make a place for each group to vent their frustrations or talk about their liking of the design. Both topics offer a place where that particular side can "theoretically" speak freely without endless bickering. 

If anything I was trying to help others from being banned. Tempers flare, have you ever seen a JJ prise topic? Its like WWIII.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

heero kasshu said:


> have you ever seen a jj prise topic? Its like wwiii.


*i hate it!!! Hate it!!! You must die if you disagree!! I hate it!!!*


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

To me it's just a stupid lopsided design and it is a disservice to the beauty of the original. Just my opinion though


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Honestly, while I somewhat understand the thinking behind these "focused" threads it also strikes me as rather childish in trying to stifle a dissenting viewpoints that can offer another perspective. Yeah, it can get get heated, but as long as it isn't directed personally as well as not assumed to be a personal attack then there should always be room for a dissenting viewpoint.


Isn't this the internet where there're never any complaints about anything ever? 

No one ever criticizes anything and no one ever takes things personally that were not aimed at him. 

The internet is a divine utopia where all mankind comes together in harmony and love. FEEL the love!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

And shouldn't this be in the movie forum?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Hopefully, these 2 threads (Love & Hate) will keep the convo in the Revell JJprise kit thread about the kit itself. 

Overall, I do like the ship, but there are certain design aspects I don't (biggie sized compared to original TOS ship, brewery engine room, bridge designed by Apple, lens flares everywhere...). 

Hmmm, maybe we need another thread for those of us that have a love/hate relationship with this ship!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Nothing about the design looks integrated. All the elements look like they came from something else and were just mashed together. To me it looks as if it were designed not to look good in its own right but to deliberately piss people off.

It doesn't look visually balanced or well integrated. It's just a mess.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

From what I've seen of the preliminary artwork, if Church had been left to his own devices, he would've come up with a much better looking ship. Still horribly wrong for the time period, but better looking at least.

The finished product reeks of meddling by a clueless producer who apparently has all the aesthetic sensibilities of a lobotomized goose. The saucer and nacelles are too big, the neck is too far back, it's schizophrenically sized, and is just plain butt ugly. I tried putting together a paper model of the thing a few years ago and gave up in disgust, not because it was difficult, but it because it was so hideous.

Once JJ has done his three movies (assuming the audience hasn't grown a few brain cells in the past few years and deservedly skip this one in droves), this branch of the franchise will shrivel and die, for the simple fact that it, like the design of the JJPrise, is all flash with no underlying substance or credibility.

So now it's time to see how it does around our track, and for that, we have to hand it over to our tame racing driver...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

spock62 said:


> ...Hmmm, maybe we need another thread for those of us that have a love/hate relationship with this ship!


That would be me. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. I suppose I have essentially three main issues with the design:

1. The design of the primary hull doesn't match the design of the rest of the ship.

2. The undercut on the secondary hull is too severe.

3. The warp engines are too close together.

But I still like it far more than I like the NCC-1701-D.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I guess it's because I started watching TNG when I was 8, but I grew up with the Enterprise D, so I like it. But I do admit it has some awkward angles and proportions.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I guess it's because I started watching TNG when I was 8, but I grew up with the Enterprise D, so I like it. But I do admit it has some awkward angles and proportions.


I had a lot of problems with the design at first. However, thanks to the artistry of the special effects crews, they came up with many gorgeous shots of the D that showed off its strengths--especially the shots showing the top of the saucer filling the screen--and I softened a lot in my attitude.

I still think the dreadnought version of the 1701D absolutely rocks--much more balanced and an exciting take on the design though there is a bit of an overkill in the add-ons on the saucer.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> But I still like it far more than I like the NCC-1701-D.


You mean the "Hilton in space"? Took a long time for the D to grow on me. The TOS/Refit had a military esthetic to them, small (relatively speaking), purposeful and maneuverable. The D reminds me of a cruise ship in space, a huge hotel of the stars (heck, it was the first Enterprise to have families as it's crew). 

Having said that, I do own 3 Enterprise D kits, (1) 1/1400 and (2) 1/2500!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Don't hate it at all. Completely stupid and boring, and not worthy to put in my collection.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The JJ-Prise looks as if it was designed by a committee. A committee of esthetic illiterates with absolutely no sense of form, visual balance, or proportion. The worst part are those stupid-looking, overstyled warp nacelles. They look like Harley J. Earl designed them when he was drunk. I mean, fins? FINS?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

*Never thought I'd HATE an Enterprise...*

...But this one made me. The saucer was ripped off from the refit, with only minor changes. The comically oversized, too-close-together nacelles look like they came from a 1950's era Buck Rogers rocketship, the spindly, bent engine pylons don't look as if they would survive an attack by a drunken mosquito with epilepsy, let alone a klingon battlecruiser (how they are holding up several thousand metric tons of engine while the ship is in gravity is mind boggling), the ever-changing size of the damn thing means no-one can get a straight answer as to how big it is (or isn't), so whatever size you want it to be is what it will be (that's ok, I guess) and the secondary hull looks like a half used tube of toothpaste, squeezed from the bottom and left with the cap off. None of the parts seem to fit well with the others, and it's plainly obvious that it was _never_ supposed to be a ship in its own right. We all know the inside of the thing is just a beer brewery so let's skip that part. Again, it looks like what it is, a collection of different bits from different ships throughout trek lore, cobbled together (lamely) in what appears to be only a _representation_ of the Enterprise, not a coherent design. When I saw it for the first time, sitting like a fat, retarded duck in space, my heart sank. It's painful to see an icon from one's childhood reshaped into an unintelligible mess. Even Andrew Probert said, "It doesn't work for me." With a little luck, we'll get something better looking from the next people to do a Star Trek movie. Maybe they'll care a bit more.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

What this team of producers have failed to realize is that the Enterprise is as much of a character as the people - at least, Gene Roddenberry thought so and I'm not going to disagree with him. Matt Jeffries, Andy Probert and all the other designers behind the TOS E, TMP E and TNG E-D spent considerable time making sure it all made sense (given the fictional requirements for a 23rd/24th century FTL ship). For me, that's a huge contributing factor to the durability of Star Trek - you believed that ship (TOS E, TMP E, TNG E-D) could do what you saw it do onscreen.

I don't buy the JJPrise. Period.

And is it just me, or do the engines look like uncircumcised John Thomases?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Honestly, while I somewhat understand the thinking behind these "focused" threads it also strikes me as rather childish in trying to stifle a dissenting viewpoints that can offer another perspective. Yeah, it can get get heated, but as long as it isn't directed personally as well as not assumed to be a personal attack then there should always be room for a dissenting viewpoint.


As I've said, ad nauseum, it's not at all dissenting viewpoints. It's the Flames that are very often directed at the opposite point of view, as well as the constant need on some people's part to constantly harp on their hatred of the movie. If certain folks could actually comment in a mature fashion, I wouldn't be disliked by you and a minority of others, I wouldn't get frustrated by certain people who can't play well with others and you wouldn't be commenting as you have here.

All that being said, so long as folks can comment in a mature manner, I have no problems with this thread.




PerfesserCoffee said:


> And shouldn't this be in the movie forum?


This can stay here. A lot of technical details get discussed here, and I'm viewing this as one of them.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Could it be that the result of CGI has so removed designers from reality that they go overboard on the structure due to the plasticity of the design environment? It's too ultimately tweakable. They never have to settle on a scale nor any concrete details. It's the ultimate morphing ship--transformer in the skies. It will never be exactly the same from movie to movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> This can stay here. A lot of technical details get discussed here, and I'm viewing this as one of them.


Yeah, good point. :thumbsup: It is more specifically the ship that is being discussed. Didn't think about that.


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

spock62 said:


> You mean the "Hilton in space"? Took a long time for the D to grow on me. The TOS/Refit had a military esthetic to them, small (relatively speaking), purposeful and maneuverable. The D reminds me of a cruise ship in space, a huge hotel of the stars (heck, it was the first Enterprise to have families as it's crew).
> 
> Having said that, I do own 3 Enterprise D kits, (1) 1/1400 and (2) 1/2500!



The first time I saw the D was an artist's rendering (I think it was the same one that was in Picard's ready room on the show, maybe?) on the back of a Cheerios box. I thought, "What in the world is that?" The saucer looked too fat to me. The design grew on me over the course of the show, but it isn't my favorite by a long shot.
Also on the back of the cereal box was a photo of the cast. I assumed Riker was the Captain and that Picard must be a Deltan. Heh...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

At the top is the JJ-prise. In the middle is Gabriel Koerner's updated version of the original 1701. At the bottom is an updated version by Vektor.

I've been trying to analyze what it is that I have a problem with about the JJ-prise and think I may have it figured out.

I think Koerner's version is still too extreme to be the 1701 but I like the design a lot and the detailing is fascinating and functional looking. There is a lot of strength incorporated into the updated structure. I prefer it over the JJ-prise by leaps and bounds despite my reservations at the extremes he went to. But the ship is, by gosh, darned respectable to the original.

I think Vektor's design would have been a great way to go. He hyper-detailed the ship including details not previously seen nor adequately explained. He opened a few panels, added cargo doors and the like. It's a very likeable rendition of the original 1701. It's like a workable version of the fairly ill-defined, in many ways, ship of the original series that we had for so long.

The JJ-prise looks off, strangely mutated compared to the other two. It's like a psychedelic version of the original, not really making much sense. The JJ-prise is the "Yellow Submarine" of _Star Trek_ ships. The dish antenna, while not bad looking per se, is too big in proportion. Kind of like nuKirk's allergy induced giant hands, it makes the ship look goofy. The much mentioned undercut takes away bulk and produces a weak effect like scalloping out a huge hunk of Arnold Schwarzeneggar's abs might do to his figure. Something's missing. The arbitrarily curved nacelle struts, again, lacking strength.

I think that there are several very effeminate features to the original Enterprise including the breast-like contours underneath the saucer. This may not be such a bad thing. Ships are commonly referred to as "she" after all. The rest of the ship, however, makes up for this and is very masculine in an obviously Freudian way. The Vektor and Koerner versions of the ship easily maintain the masculinity of the original. In fact, you could say that Koerner's version really puts the ship on steroids. 

The JJ-prise? It looks like it just came out of a beauty salon and got the latest faddish hairstyle. It minces around on high heels as if it looks cool and can't understand why everyone's laughing behind its back. It is way too effeminate, IMHO. The ship looks as if it's been dressed up like a street-walker. The saucer didn't change too much overall--it was already effeminate--but every other part of the ship has been neutered as much as possible it seems. I think this _may _be the core of many people's revulsion at the sight of it. 

But then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

its like the modern design ethic is to say "hey, that design looks aesthetically pleasing - lets play around with it until it doesn't - that'll be thinking 'outside' the box"

Its the same with the lost in space J2 ship - stupid looking ship bursting out of what looked like a fairly good modernized Jupiter 2 (the Jupiter 1).

And taking the concept of a black, sleek looking car - Knight rider - and turning it into a box-like, completely un-aerodynamic mustang. Could you imagine what it'd feel like to drive through a wall with a big square fronted car??

I didn't mind the new BSG but it suffered the fate of a forgotten cast member by being give a fraction of the time needed for the viewer to digest the death of the ship the show is named after!

Steve


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I think a design aesthetic somewhere between Vectors but more toward Koerner's would have been good. I think Vector's is not drastic enough (still looks too 1960s design style), and Koerners is a little too far. (too Battlestar looking).

Perhaps I should do some of my own reimagining on the TOS E. (I'm a graphic designer)


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I think I'm going to post wild insane rants in BOTH threads for and against.... that should keep everyone guessing.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Bay7 said:


> its like the modern design ethic is to say "hey, that design looks aesthetically pleasing - lets play around with it until it doesn't - that'll be thinking 'outside' the box"


I think you're onto something there. It's like the jealous husband beating up his wife to the point that she isn't attractive to other men anymore. But, at that point, the husband has total control over the wife and maybe control was what this redesign was all about.

Corporate Hollywood is very political in the non-electoral, high-school cliquish sense of the word. I once heard of a scene in a book where a bunch of elites and wannabes went to a performance of something that was pure dreck but it had been declared "hip" by the elite standard-setters whose power of intimidation and to exclude others was so strong that no one in the crowd dared to not clap enthusiastically when the performance had ended. I get the same feeling from this movie's overall look.



Bay7 said:


> Its the same with the lost in space J2 ship - stupid looking ship bursting out of what looked like a fairly good modernized Jupiter 2 (the Jupiter 1).


Yeah! I'd forgotten that! Talk about a tease and then a slap in the face! Loved the Jupiter 1 and hated the Toyota Camry that pooped out of the shell. You're right, the new ship seemed also to have been designed upon the idea that the more it was unlike the original, the better because the modern elites have _*so*_ much more taste than to produce something too similar to the original, "hokey" designs of the past.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Perhaps I should do some of my own reimagining on the TOS E. (I'm a graphic designer)


That would be great! :thumbsup: I got a big kick out of the alternate designs and redesigns of the NX-01 up to and including Drexler's addition of a secondary hull.


----------



## asalaw (Dec 23, 2012)

I think the ship looks like the refit humped a Buick. :tongue:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Does it look better upside-down?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nah, it's fugly no matter how you place it.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Not a big fan of the design. There was an episode of the Simpsons quite a while ago in which Moe - I think - defines post-modern design as "weird for the sake of weird." That's this version of the Enterprise.

I didn't expect a 60s version of the ship. But I didn't expect something so completely lacking in grace and balance....


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

The sad thing is, it had potential to be a nice reboot of the original. 
I've seen fan redesigns where the neck is moved forward, the nacelle struts are swooped back ala the refit's and the diameter of the nacelles is reduced and it looks rather good. Too bad.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I happen to have my Revell Enterprise sitting next to me on the scanner, and despite the year of its conception, it is most definitely *NOT* a "1960's design". It's a straightforward, utilitarian military design, without a single thing about it that points to the 1960's (with the possible exception of the whirlygig lights in the engines, and that's stretching; if it was a couple of lava lamps, sure, but blinking Christmas lights under a fan? Hardly).

Now, the JJPrise, with all its swooping curves, fins, stylized lines, and the hint of flames coming out of the nacelles....besides violating every rule Roddenberry set down to Jefferies about what he wanted, it reeks of the very 1940's and 1950's sci-fi spaceship design tropes that the Enterprise, and by derivation Star Trek itself, was supposed to leave behind. In a nutshell, it's an encapsulation of everything that's so horribly wrong with JJTrek, and precisely why it's the target of so many attacks and so much dislike.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> In a nutshell, it's an encapsulation of everything that's so horribly wrong with JJTrek, and precisely why it's the target of so many attacks and so much dislike.


That's it succinctly. Just as MJ's design perfectly evokes and represents so much of what we love about TOS the JJprise is just as ideally representative of everything wrong with Abrams-trek.

The TOS _E_ looks well thought out and consciously reasoned through. Ditto the TMP refit. The JJprise neatly represents arbitrariness and complete lack of reason. It's a thorough rejection of what came before, a complete parody of the original just as the film itself is a spoofing of the original series.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> It's a thorough rejection of what came before, a complete parody of the original just as the film itself is a spoofing of the original series.


And there's the marrow! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's also why any discussion of the model winds up with a discussion of the movie itself. It's impossible to separate the failings of the design from the failings of the movie it's a part of and the thought processes of the men who created them both.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> It's also why any discussion of the model winds up with a discussion of the movie itself. It's impossible to separate the failings of the design from the failings of the movie it's a part of and the thought processes of the men who created them both.


Yes! Excellent point! :thumbsup:


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

i've read many remarks. seems like most of it is just new ways to say "i hate it."

might this not be a perfect example of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?

just as with features on a person, some like this and some like that.

some like vanilla. some like chocolate.

why?

sometimes there is no accounting or explaining why.

you just do.

that said, it becomes rather pointless to discuss/debate, no?

you say deflector dish too big.

i say it's just the right size.

you say nacelles too large and it throws ship outta whack or off balance.

i say the larger nacelles give the ship strength and power and blend nicely with the rest of the design.

how does either of us win the other over?

i don't see how...or even why it matters.

you like brunettes.

i like blondes.

what can either of us say that will sway the other or even possibly explain why one is better over another.

certainly not with more inventive ways to state what we like.

but perhaps i'm still missing the point.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The sad thing is the made a parody of The Gray Lady unintentionally.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I used to like BMW and Mercedes-Benz designs, but not for many years now. A lot of ugly is also now in the automotive industry.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh No! Not again!!


----------



## MLCrisis32 (Oct 11, 2011)

Hey sorry I've been away for so long but I had to contribute.

I don't _hate_ the design but there are a couple of things that keep it from "great":

1. The neck is too far back from the dish
2. Shuttle end is too small/narrow which makes the nacelles look even more enormous than they were designed to look. 
3. I don't hate the crazy over-designed engines but the pylons are way too close. 

In motion the ship actually looks nice but as a model kit, stationary, it just looks.. off balanced. I'd imagine adding the extra weight of lights/wires you'd need a metal U-shaped rig to keep the pylons from snapping off the plastic model.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

drmcoy said:


> i've read many remarks. seems like most of it is just new ways to say "i hate it."
> 
> might this not be a perfect example of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?
> 
> ...


DEFINITELY missing the point of this thread. If you like the ship, great, there's a thread for that. Please post and share over there. THIS is the thread for those of us that don't, and want to share that dislike with each other. It's SUCH a strong dislike that we feel compelled to talk about it with one another. We don't need to justify our disdain for this ship. We simply don't like it. :wave:


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Captain April said:


> I happen to have my Revell Enterprise sitting next to me on the scanner, and despite the year of its conception, it is most definitely *NOT* a "1960's design". It's a straightforward, utilitarian military design, without a single thing about it that points to the 1960's (with the possible exception of the whirlygig lights in the engines, and that's stretching; if it was a couple of lava lamps, sure, but blinking Christmas lights under a fan? Hardly).
> 
> Now, the JJPrise, with all its swooping curves, fins, stylized lines, and the hint of flames coming out of the nacelles....besides violating every rule Roddenberry set down to Jefferies about what he wanted, it reeks of the very 1940's and 1950's sci-fi spaceship design tropes that the Enterprise, and by derivation Star Trek itself, was supposed to leave behind. In a nutshell, it's an encapsulation of everything that's so horribly wrong with JJTrek, and precisely why it's the target of so many attacks and so much dislike.


Bravo, Captain. Could not have said it any better. Excellent analysis.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I certainly don't like how the saucer is moved back along the dorsal and how flat the top of the saucer looks. And I also agree the nacelles are too close together.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Those who like the "J.J.Prise" have their own thread. Keep your love there, please. This one is for the Haters, and lets keep it that way.


----------



## NathanJ72 (Dec 16, 2012)

Well of all this it can be said that the TOS and Refit were actual tangible models. They were "real". The JJPrise? A digitally mastered bad dream?


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

Who cares? There's so much more to life to hate than a fictional spacecraft that doesn't exist. :freak:


~ Chris​


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Those who like the "J.J.Prise" have their own thread. Keep your love there, please. This one is for the Haters, and lets keep it that way.



understood. commence with the hating. truly sorry i interrupted. i will indeed respect the subject matter of this thread and this will be my last post to it.


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

Maybe they will blow it up soon hopefully bye the third film, one an dream you know. Other than wanting it blown up repeatly i have no problems with it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dyonisis said:


> Who cares? There's so much more to life to hate than a fictional spacecraft that doesn't exist. :freak:
> 
> 
> ~ Chris​



It exists. Even if just on frames of digital imagery, it exists.

We choose to exercise our minds just a bit as to why we dislike it and to vent about what we see as a gross aberration to _Star Trek _mythology. Where's the harm? If we were preparing for war over the matter, you might have a point. It's really all just about releasing a little steam.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sunburn800 said:


> Maybe they will blow it up soon hopefully bye the third film, one a dream you know. Other than wanting it blown up repeatedly i have no problems with it.


Considering the record so far of things being blown up "real good!" for ST films, it seems likely that they will do just that.


----------



## NathanJ72 (Dec 16, 2012)

Dyonisis said:


> Who cares? There's so much more to life to hate than a fictional spacecraft that doesn't exist. :freak:
> 
> 
> ~ Chris​


As a kid that had a rough childhood I watched this series and saw a ship that took a beating and kept on going. I used it as a metaphor to just keep on going. To me it is important. I do not like to see the ship disgraced. But that is just me.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's _*POOP*_!! 




Dyonisis said:


> Who cares? There's so much more to life to hate than a fictional spacecraft that doesn't exist. :freak:


This must be your first day on the internet!


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

John P said:


> It's _*POOP*_!!





John P said:


> This must be your first day on the internet!


 :lol::lol::lol: :tongue: 

IT IS, IT IS!!! How'd I do?! :roll:I try not to disappoint. 

~ Chris​


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

4.2 4.4 3.7 1.1 3.9 5.0
usa can uk fra rus prc


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Whats with the french judge?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There's always something with the slimy little surrender monkey....


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Stewie Griffin voice: "Hate it."

It's really the neck being set too far back on the secondary hull that I abhor. The rest of it is tolerable, though not enjoyable.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Those who like the "J.J.Prise" have their own thread. Keep your love there, please. This one is for the Haters, and lets keep it that way.


Haters?

_Please!_ I prefer the term, "critic." 

And I think "gusher" is the polite term for an enthusiast of the new movie and ship. :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

phicks said:


> It's really the neck being set too far back on the secondary hull that I abhor. The rest of it is tolerable, though not enjoyable.


I don't abhor the thing, but that neck is the first thing I'd change. Next, I'd shrink the nacelles a bit and tone down the detail.

It would be funny if they blew it up, and the new version looked like TOS.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

It would be pretty cool to kit bash this thing into something more palatable....


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> It would be pretty cool to kit bash this thing into something more palatable....


It should not be too hard. You just need to replace the saucer section, the secondary hull, and the nacelle's and struts.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I can't help but think that if they had been building this model old school instead of as a CGI model that it would look different. I'm not sure that it would have been strong enough structurally in some areas to stand up the rigors of filming.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Bashing this thing would be a piece of cake.

Only question is whether to use a baseball bat or a 7 iron.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Those who like the "J.J.Prise" have their own thread. Keep your love there, please. This one is for the Haters, and lets keep it that way.


As a former Mod, I tried this very thing back in 2009. As I recall, it didn't work out so well. This time, I sure the debate will prove more civil.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Bashing this thing would be a piece of cake.
> 
> Only question is whether to use a baseball bat or a 7 iron.


What, and risk damaging a perfectly good 7 iron? :lol:


----------



## wjplenge (Apr 14, 2011)

I'd reccomend a 16 pound sledge hammer, though I tend to reserve mine for computer repair.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

My few pence - I agree I think that certain 'influences' over tweaked the design into something lame. 
I reckon It could have worked better had it been kept much more subtle.

But then the movie was targeted at non trek fans and trying to capture a new generation. Perhaps this is why the ship is so over the top, and why the bridge looked like an apple shop, in a horrific attempt to appeal to the young iPad generation?

I agree also that the ship looks like a parody of itself - I reckon it would have looked right at home in GalaxyQuest !


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> It should not be too hard. You just need to replace the saucer section, the secondary hull, and the nacelle's and struts.


:roll:

Good one! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JediPuju said:


> I reckon it would have looked right at home in GalaxyQuest !


Wow! 

I think you're onto something there! VERY good point! :thumbsup:

I wonder if there has been an analysis of possible specific influences of _GQ _on nuTrek and the JJ-prise?

(What goes around, comes around?)


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

mach7 said:


> It should not be too hard. You just need to replace the saucer section, the secondary hull, and the nacelle's and struts.


Yeah, keep the dorsal!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

So far the H8TR thread has 50% more posts than the Gusher thread!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

What a great victory for hate!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, let's keep that trend agoin'!


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

No hatred here..... However, if honest.....I find the design mildly repugnant and awkward at best!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Mark Dorais said:


> No hatred here..... However, if honest.....I find the design mildly repugnant and awkward at best!


Well, sir, that makes you a fellow _*critic*_ and a very discerning individual! Welcome aboard! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Captain April said:


> Bashing this thing would be a piece of cake.
> 
> Only question is whether to use a baseball bat or a 7 iron.



I set em up, you knock em down! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

John P said:


> So far the H8TR thread has 50% more posts than the Gusher thread!


Although if you read that thread, the haters are starting to take over... its inevitable.

Griff is getting pretty miffed about it too.,


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Mark Dorais said:


> No hatred here..... However, if honest.....I find the design mildly repugnant and awkward at best!


Seriously, if the movie had been closer to the Trek I grew up with, I'd have a more stern attitude towards the ship's design. But emo Spock? Vulcan scragged? Whatever then, screw with the ship too...:wave:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nova Designs said:


> Although if you read that thread, the haters are starting to take over... its inevitable.
> 
> Griff is getting pretty miffed about it too.,


I'm sticking with the spirit of the deal and not even looking in there.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Although if you read that thread, the haters are starting to take over...


Oh my goodness, what a sudden and unpredictable turn of events! 

I'm shocked, _shocked_ to discover the same insecure and intolerant infants who got bored dissing the Abrams Enterprise amongst themselves back in 2009 would, once again, feel the irrepressible need to bully their way into the non-hater camp in 2013! 

What is it about the need to piss on someone else's parade?

And for the record, I too dislike the Abrams design! Even so, I feel ZERO urge to bash a design (or movie) that gives others pleasure.

Why am I reminded of Let That Be Your Last Battlefield -- or that other third season episode with the two double-exposure dopplegangers fighting into eternity for no compelling reason?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

It's not that bad over there. I've seen one poster get banned recently and that was for violating what was clearly stated in the thread several times. No use exaggerating. It would be nice if the two thread system works out. There seem to have been some gushers on this thread as well with no atomic bombs going off.

I still think there's plenty of reason to critique, bash, whatever you want to call it. It's not as if that doesn't happen regarding just about everything on the internet. There's a feeling of disappointment and resentment at the direction the franchise has taken. I think that's healthy for fans if they want to spend their time doing that. 

This particular _ST_ shock is not one from which long time fans are recovering from as most did after some initial culture shocks when first encountering _ST:TMP, ST:TNG, STS9, ST:VOY_. The fan base was way ahead of events regarding _ST:ENT_ which was generally regarded by them as the worst of series and met an untimely demise after what was, in my opinion, an unexpectedly long run for a poorly managed show.

That being said, nearly all of us are here on someone else's "property" and, of course, need to behave courteously and according to the rules set down.


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

My love is the refit.

For the new ship I am "ok" with the saucer - the rest is crap! CRAP I say!

Such a missed opportunity.

I pray they blow it up in part 3. Please!


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

Here is a little something to make us feel better.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

I guess I should chime in too...

I don't necessarily "HATE" the JJ Prise itself - I just consider it a poor effort compared to past Star Trek ship designs. It's out of proportion and misshapen. I don't even care for the Kelvin or any of the other ship designs in the film.

The film itself is also disjointed and poorly handled from the start. The writing leaves vast, gaping holes in the story and the way the characters are supposed to come together is ... wrong. 

Don't get me started on the overuse of lens-flare and shaky-cam....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mechinyun said:


> I pray they blow it up in part 3. Please!


Maybe they'll do it in such a way as to reset the entire time continuum back to normal. That _might _get rid of _ST:ENT_ as well :thumbsup:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

To me it looks like some sort of distorted characature of an Enterprise or a child's out of proportion rendition of it. It reminds me of the USS Bonaventure the way it's out of proportion from the Animated Star Trek series episode Time Trap. I may buy one of the models to try my hand at making a version of the Bonaventure or similar ship out of it. But as far as it supposedly being the TOS Enterprise I say ugh. I rank it right down there with the abyssal redesign of Dean Devlin's awful Godzilla,which the designers of the new Godzilla movie swear will NOT be repeated this time around. I say if you want to "re imagine" someone else's already perfected design then you should just start from scratch and call it something else and make your own universe to stick it in.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> To me it looks like some sort of distorted characature of an Enterprise or a child's out of proportion rendition of it. It reminds me of the USS Bonaventure the way it's out of proportion from the Animated Star Trek series episode Time Trap. I may buy one of the models to try my hand at making a version of the Bonaventure or similar ship out of it. But as far as it supposedly being the TOS Enterprise I say ugh. I rank it right down there with the abyssal redesign of Dean Devlin's awful Godzilla,which the designers of the new Godzilla movie swear will NOT be repeated this time around. I say if you want to "re imagine" someone else's already perfected design then you should just start from scratch and call it something else and make your own universe to stick it in.


You sound like my sock puppet!  

Welcome, fellow critic! :wave:


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Maybe they'll do it in such a way as to reset the entire time continuum back to normal. That _might _get rid of _ST:ENT_ as well :thumbsup:


We can only hope and pray!

I'd much rather have a kit of the USS Kelvin, at least that ship looks somewhat original series-ish. The difference between that ship and the JJprise almost makes one think that they came from completely different designers. Or did they?


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You sound like my sock puppet!
> 
> Welcome, fellow critic! :wave:


With me critic is too cordial of a word. Yes I am a self proclaimed HATER of this so called starship. I LOATHE it as much as I loathe having explosive diarrhea!
I'm not sure which I should do to JJ Abrams for his misdeed.Should I slap him across the face with the Playmates toy of his abomonation and say "BAD! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!" or should I immediately rush him to an eye specialist to see what is wrong with his vision since he thinks that it looks cool?!?!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

whiskeyrat said:


> We can only hope and pray!
> 
> I'd much rather have a kit of the USS Kelvin, at least that ship looks somewhat original series-ish. The difference between that ship and the JJprise almost makes one think that they came from completely different designers. Or did they?


Yeah, the _Kelvin _is a decent variation of the_ Star Trek_ design ethos. 

So were the Kelvin's hand phasers--a strange but not too bad variation:










I suspect the Kelvin and the nuPrise did come from different designers. Too much trouble for one person to do all the designing nowadays. Matt Jefferies, after all, had a crew of--no, wait. I think he did all the designs for TOS himself.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> With me critic is too cordial of a word. Yes I am a self proclaimed HATER of this so called starship. I LOATHE it as much as I loathe having explosive diarrhea!
> I'm not sure which I should do to JJ Abrams for his misdeed.Should I slap him across the face with the Playmates toy of his abomonation and say "BAD! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!" or should I immediately rush him to an eye specialist to see what is wrong with his vision since he thinks that it looks cool?!?!


And he lied to us saying the movie was going to be respectful to the original. 

The worst thing about the 2009 movie was that it was dreck, storywise. It was a contrived mishmash, horrible writing and, though there have certainly been stinkers in the past, nothing compared to how much this one stunk.

Okay, you get to label yourself. It's one of your unalienable rights. You shall forever be known as "Loather the First, Valiant Knight and Defender of the TOS Realm Against All That Excretes." :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

MOSUGOJI said:


> I'm not sure which I should do to JJ Abrams for his misdeed.Should I slap him across the face with the Playmates toy of his abomonation and say "BAD! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!"


:lol:!!!


----------



## sambob (Apr 3, 2006)

Yes I must admit the ship Is just "wrong" design wise It makes no sense which Is why I'm sure you'll never see a technical manual for It, also the mish-mash of technology...you have the apple ibridge then the engine room(nuff-said).
It also violates to many rules about star ships laid down by Gene....to many to even try and list here.
I can tell you there Is hope this "thing" Is from an alternate time line, which means It can be made to unhappen.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, the _Kelvin _is a decent variation of the_ Star Trek_ design ethos.
> 
> So were the Kelvin's hand phasers--a strange but not too bad variation:
> 
> ...


The only things I find odd about the Kelvin phasers are the rounded socket wrench handle pistol grip and what looks like a water hose connection on the back of it. If that is supposed to be a power recharge port then they must plug something equivalent to a high tension tower power line into it.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

sambob said:


> Yes I must admit the ship Is just "wrong" design wise It makes no sense which Is why I'm sure you'll never see a technical manual for It, also the mish-mash of technology...you have the apple ibridge then the engine room(nuff-said).
> It also violates to many rules about star ships laid down by Gene....to many to even try and list here.
> I can tell you there Is hope this "thing" Is from an alternate time line, which means It can be made to unhappen.


yeah yeah, i know, i like the JJprise so bugger off over to that thread...sorry but even if that is the case i have a valid point and question here.

Could you please list the rules the jjprise breaks? I have nothing against the argument other than most of the reasons to dislike this ship come from petty little things, but YOUR argument sounds to have merit to it.

I'm all for respecting other peoples oppinions, so dont take this post as treading on anyones toes, but im very much interested in those broken rules with references to the rules.

why? because i have an open mind and im happy to see both sides of the coin, further to that im happy and keen to learn about stuff, and well, i would love to see the list of broken rules and why they've been broken. research and understanding and all that.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The only "rule" in terms of design ethos I see as being broken is the apparent propulsion coming from the rear of the nacelles. 

My problems with the ship are that it's too big, too unbalanced, and too ugly to be the Enterprise. 

Another problem (and breaking the rules of the original Enterprise) I have is with the capabilities of the ship. It was never meant to go into the atmosphere, much less underwater. Starships are not submarines. And why put the entire ship underwater when an aquashuttle or some such would have been sufficient?

The_ nuTrek_ movies are like modern art. The spray a bunch of stuff onto the canvas and we're all supposed to be impressed because of the people who are doing it or because of the bright colors (bright lights) or whatever. 

I'm beginning to suspect that _nuTrek's_ audience appeal and resultant money making may have more in common with the demographics of _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ than traditional _Trek_. Yeah, it's a money maker now but like_ LIS_ fans decades later, they're going to realize what crap the stories mostly were to begin with whether they liked the ship and equipage or not.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

perhaps i missed something, but when does the JJprise enter atmosphere or go under water?

I know in the 2009 movie it enters saturns gas clouds but not the planet itself.

does the U.S have better ads for the 2013 movie than us in the uk?

im not here for a fight, just looking for clarifcation on a few points. I can fully appreciate your perspective, i have my own but they are not for this thread hehe.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

secretreeve said:


> perhaps i missed something, but when does the JJprise enter atmosphere or go under water?


I saw the first few minutes of the new film on the internet.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

I think it's appropriate that the JJPrise can go under water since it does belong in the toilet:thumbsup:


----------



## Dave in RI (Jun 28, 2009)

secretreeve said:


> perhaps i missed something, but when does the JJprise enter atmosphere or go under water?
> 
> I know in the 2009 movie it enters saturns gas clouds but not the planet itself.
> 
> ...


Don't forget in the 2009 movie, the Enterprise was built on Terra Firma and therefore had to travel in Earth's atmosphere to reach space.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> I think it's appropriate that the JJPrise can go under water since it does belong in the toilet:thumbsup:


 I hadn't thought of that!


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

Dave in RI said:


> Don't forget in the 2009 movie, the Enterprise was built on Terra Firma and therefore had to travel in Earth's atmosphere to reach space.


Thats true, but hey, makes sense to me.

anyway, I'll stop posting here as theres things i'd love to remark on but cant.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

The JJPrize reminds me of Battle Beyond the Planet:









I thought the whole movie sucked. All I can remember about it was the fight that looked like it took place in a factory (instead of Engineering).


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Clip


PerfesserCoffee said:


> ... Matt Jefferies, after all, had a crew of--no, wait. I think he did all the designs for TOS himself.


Wah Chang doing the other half of the designs and the prop building himself.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Model Man said:


> Wah Chang doing the other half of the designs and the prop building himself.


Oh, yeah! Shouldn't have left him out! What a genius!:thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> The JJPrize reminds me of Battle Beyond the Planet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the ship was based on the "hammerhead" Ithorian alien from the _Star Wars _cantina scene. :freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is an excellent summary fo what I've found to be the main problems with the JJ-prise--besides the contrived story in the movie:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's the problem in a nutshell...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Here's the problem in a nutshell...


So it's a little bit bigger . . . 

The real question is, how will those nacelles fare in the kit Revell is working on?

Even with the expanded strut supports, that's a lot of weight. Plus the secondary hull
is severely undercut near the connection point.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I choose to ignore the upscaling. Ick.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Size is irrelevant. It still looks like crap.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Has it ever been officially stated how big the ship is? Where did that figure of over a mile long come from?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So it's a little bit bigger . . .
> 
> The real question is, how will those nacelles fare in the kit Revell is working on?
> 
> ...


The only way I can see to make the nacelle/pylon structure stable for the model kit is to mold the bottom section of the nacelle together with the pylon. That might avoid sagging due to the part being one piece, instead of two, and the glue join above, perhaps the bottom third of the nacelle, wouldn't really be a load bearing one. The bottom of the pylon is a lot wider and could be a glue join and hold up the engine with no worries. Or they could just scrap the damn thing and start over with something better looking and better thought out.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Warped9 said:


> Size is irrelevant. It still looks like crap.


Lolz! Welcome back!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Here's the problem in a nutshell...


Well, that's putting it in the starkest possible terms, Capt.! 

The ship being that big makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Where are you guys getting the 5836ft. number? The guys at ILM said it's 2,300ft.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's the most ridiculous number, and therefore preferred for this thread.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

jbond said:


> It's the most ridiculous number, and therefore preferred for this thread.



Trolling nature of the above comment notwithstanding, you can go for the 2379.75 feet and it still looks ridiculous:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jheilman said:


> Has it ever been officially stated how big the ship is? Where did that figure of over a mile long come from?



No, there really have been no "official" statements of how big the Enterprise we saw in the 2009 movie ended up being.

There are statements made all over the place by the designers of the ship at various stages of the design.

The only ones I've found interesting are the ones made by the designers, who are all over the place, beginning with an originally intended scale of 1200 feet literally going all the way up to 5,000 feet!

The most amusing statement I've come across by those involved in the creation of the ship is one I came across from a link posted by FireAngel in the thread named "JJPrise coming."

"Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question." from http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)#Size


Translation, "Don't ask me."

The number of 5836 feet long comes from an attempt made to scale the ship based on the shuttlebay size. 

An element I later learned, again thanks to a link posted by FireAngel, that forced the designers to upscale the ship from what they originally intended.

" ILM Art Director Alex Jaeger says: "The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations -- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail." "

from this link, http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size

The author of that article on Ex Astris Scienta then states the factor it was bumped up by was a factor of two,

but that is an impossible number. The section just forward of the clamshell doors on the secondary hull would most likely have to be 308 to 350 feet wide, based on a shuttlecraft length of approximately 44' feet.

I rounded down that area on an orthographic overhead view of the ship to 300 feet.

And even with the rounding down - the length came out to be an incredible 5836 feet!!!!!!

I don't even want to mention how big the circular part of the bridge beneath the transparent dome is!!!! (There is most definitely a conflict in size created by their upscaling the ship to fit the shuttlebay).

But I have to give them credit for at least being cognizant of what they needed to do to make everything fit.

Even if my rounded down calculations were to be substantially reduced, I don't see that ship getting much or even close to being under 5000 feet.

Which is a number in the range thrown out by yet another designer,

"Star Trek illustrator John Eaves recalls that before he finished working on the movie in October 2007, the size of the Enterprise had been very much undefined, anywhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet"

from http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)#Size



So again, the designers are all over the place as to how big the thing really would have to be in reality,

with at least one designer, basically saying "please go ask Abrams how big it is, I don't know."


I think the estimate of 5836 feet is fairly accurate if you want everything seen onscreen to fit as seen inside a real ship.

There are those, such as the author of the Ex Astris Scienta who argue that the shuttlebay should just be ignored.

But in terms of accurate scale modeling I find that idea to be a little silly.

How can one claim a size as accurate while arguing a huge part of the model should be totally ignored?

I'll be the first one to admit that by not ignoring that shutllebay as seen onscreen you end up with an astronomically large ship.

But there it is.

I won't make the obvious Sherlock Holmes quote here . . .

But that is what we are left with.

I think a ridiculously large ship that can hold everything seen on screen is more accurate then asking us to shut our eyes to what is shown onscreen.

But that's just my own personal deductive/inductive reasoning at work.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Trolling nature of the above comment notwithstanding, you can go for the 2379.75 feet and it still looks ridiculous:


Hey, I'm not saying it isn't mindbogglingly astronomically huge.

But if we make it big enough to hold everything seen on screen
you'd have to more then double that 2379.75 feet.

Might be ridiculous, but that's what we're stuck with.

I'm not happy about it myself, 

and you don't even want to know how big the circular part of the bridge complex would have to be, assuming a ship big enough to fit everything seen onscreen! :freak:


----------



## Heero Kasshu (Dec 19, 2012)

Hey guys, a little off topic, but I thought you should know first........

All sorts of movie websites are reporting that JJ just got the job for Star Wars Episode VII


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Heero Kasshu said:


> Hey guys, a little off topic, but I thought you should know first........
> 
> All sorts of movie websites are reporting that JJ just got the job for Star Wars Episode VII


 And if you think the JJPrise is a nightmare wait until you see his "reimagining" of the Millenium Falcon:drunk:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

He'll just blow it up in the first 15 minutes and change the timeline with some 2-dimensional bad guy so he can do whatever he wants. Now the Star Wars fans are going to knwo what we Trek fans have been suffering.

And I can't wait to hear them say how much they miss Lucas! LOL!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'll be the first one to admit that by not ignoring that shutllebay as seen onscreen you end up with an astronomically large ship.


I can see your point, Chuck. On the other hand, even the TOS shuttle bay won't fit inside the TOS Enterprise. Of course, it doesn't make for as oversized a ship as the JJPrise. And then there's that brewery interior that is supposed to fit in there. Ah well, guess we're stuck with it (the JJPrise, I mean).


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

.....if you hate the J.J. Prise, you'll hate the J.J.Falcon even more ! Yes that's correct boys and girls, J.J. Abrams has just been signed by Disney to destroy...I mean direct the next Star Wars movie.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Ductapeforever said:


> .....if you hate the J.J. Prise, you'll hate the J.J.Falcon even more ! Yes that's correct boys and girls, J.J. Abrams has just been signed by Disney to destroy...I mean direct the next Star Wars movie.


Now Star Wars fans will feel the pain that Trek fans have been feeling since '09. The enemy of my enemy is my friend! Star wars fans, join us! We shall march in the streets and get a revolution going up in this piece!


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

And don't forget the unexpected romance like between Spock and Uhura. This time around though the romance will be between Luke and Chewbacca.......


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Who knows? JJ wanted Trek to be more like _Star Wars_ and now he'll get to do what he's really into. If he does happen to treat _Star Wars_ with some respect then it'll really reveal his true colours in how he pissed all over TOS.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Dr. Brad said:


> I can see your point, Chuck. On the other hand, even the TOS shuttle bay won't fit inside the TOS Enterprise. Of course, it doesn't make for as oversized a ship as the JJPrise. And then there's that brewery interior that is supposed to fit in there. Ah well, guess we're stuck with it (the JJPrise, I mean).


Agreed on every point.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Check out the JJ Prise art model project. Click on one! http://www.startrekmovie.com/modelgallery/


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> He'll just blow it up in the first 15 minutes and change the timeline with some 2-dimensional bad guy so he can do whatever he wants. Now the Star Wars fans are going to knwo what we Trek fans have been suffering.
> 
> And I can't wait to hear them say how much they miss Lucas! LOL!


I wasn't into the movie enough to want to find out when it came out,

but how much of the storyline and script does a director usually decide as opposed to what happened with Star Trek 2009?

Seems like he was involved in a lot more then just directing in the 2009 Star Trek based on what I've read about the FX.

He has shown himself to be a good director with the right script.
I think most of Fringe was done well, for example.

And while I didn't like the storyline or the F/X for the 2009 movie,

I think he got good performances out of the actors,
which traditionally is what I think the director is supposed to be responsible for.

That's neither a defense nor criticism, but an observation. I'm mainly ask these questions because I'm curious as to who decided what,
especially concerning the FX.

Do studios tend to just turn control of everything to him when the hire him to direct?

Is that sort of thing common.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I suspect in the case of Star Wars, JJ will suddenly find himself on a very short leash, and learn what it's like to muck about in someone else's sandbox when the owner is still very much around and ready to defend his brainchild.

This could be fun. :devil:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Check out the JJ Prise art model project. Click on one! http://www.startrekmovie.com/modelgallery/












That whole promotional "contest" is emblematic of what the _nuTrek _franchise is all about: a bunch of elitist, self-indulgent, narcissistic, artsy-fartsy Hollywood insiders using and abusing _Star Trek_ to aggrandize themselves among their crowd and then taking the money and running.

Well, that makes them like most other Hollywood productions but_ Star Trek_ has never been "hip." The movies have been popular and money-makers _despite _this handicap. Gene Roddenberry never did much of anything after he hit with _Star Trek_. That's because no one would let him. He was never fully accepted. He had power and money but only within the realm of _Star Trek_. Otherwise, he wasn't trusted to do anything and he was slowly deposed over the years from _Star Trek _though luckily most of those people had a respect for _ST_--until now.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I suspect in the case of Star Wars, JJ will suddenly find himself on a very short leash, and learn what it's like to muck about in someone else's sandbox when the owner is still very much around and ready to defend his brainchild.
> 
> This could be fun. :devil:


Do you suppose he'll try to dress the characters in leather cloaks and high top army boots for that "Jedi Goth" look? 

I hope he chokes when they pull that short leash when he goes up against them and quits. :tongue:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd lay odds that ol' George still retains creative control over his baby, so there goes JJ's more absurdist tendencies right off the bat. 

Also, if there's one thing Lucas has demonstrated over the years, he's not a fan of shaky handheld camera shots. If anything, his preference is to lock the camera down and do his best to be a fly on the wall while the action unfolds in front of him.

Probably not a fan of excessive lens flares, either.

J.J. Abrams, prepare to reenter film school.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> J.J. Abrams, prepare to reenter film school.


Ha! Good one!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Yes, I'm sure they made a multimillion dollar deal with Abrams precisely so they can force him not to do everything he's done that's made him successful and caused him to be hired by Disney in the first place.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

jbond said:


> Yes, I'm sure they made a multimillion dollar deal with Abrams precisely so they can force him not to do everything he's done that's made him successful and caused him to be hired by Disney in the first place.


Sarcasm noted, but I suspect JJ will be on a shorter leash than he was with Star Trek. If Disney feels something may not be in the best interest of the Star Wars brand, they won't be quiet about it, I'm sure.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Well that's very possible, but look at the other side of it. Abrams initially indicated that he was not interested in the job. That may have been simply trying to keep people off the scent before the deal was finished, but as we have seen, a lot of big-name directors have expressed their lack of interest in taking on Star Wars, and I would be willing to bet that the reason for that is exactly what you're expressing--these are all directors who are used to being able to express their vision for the most part without interference, they are all developing highly successful careers, so what's the advantage of being a hired hand on a project where you're going to be second-guessed by the studio and the original creator of the franchise at every turn?
I would say that in order to make the deal, they had to guarantee Abrams some creative control and freedom. Otherwise what's his incentive to do the job? I know many of you will just shout "Money!" but when you have to spend four or five years of your life doing the bone-crushing job of making a film, you don't do it only for money, particularly when you are in Abrams' position and you can pick what projects you want to do (remember that he delayed doing Trek 2 so he could work on his own project, Super 8). Lucas has said (and been backed up by statements from Kathleen Kennedy and Disney) that he won't have creative control over the new SW films. I would think he MIGHT have a little input on things like the deaths of characters or aspects of the film that he might believe would seriously undermine the franchise. But stylistic aspects of filmmaking I seriously doubt would be on that list. So I don't expect that Abrams will be sent back to film school--I think he was hired because the Star Trek movies were successful and Disney and Kathleen Kennedy want to duplicate that success by updating the style of the SW films.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jbond said:


> Well that's very possible, but look at the other side of it. Abrams initially indicated that he was not interested in the job. That may have been simply trying to keep people off the scent before the deal was finished, but as we have seen, a lot of big-name directors have expressed their lack of interest in taking on Star Wars, and I would be willing to bet that the reason for that is exactly what you're expressing--these are all directors who are used to being able to express their vision for the most part without interference, they are all developing highly successful careers, so what's the advantage of being a hired hand on a project where you're going to be second-guessed by the studio and the original creator of the franchise at every turn?
> I would say that in order to make the deal, they had to guarantee Abrams some creative control and freedom. Otherwise what's his incentive to do the job? I know many of you will just shout "Money!" but when you have to spend four or five years of your life doing the bone-crushing job of making a film, you don't do it only for money, particularly when you are in Abrams' position and you can pick what projects you want to do (remember that he delayed doing Trek 2 so he could work on his own project, Super 8). Lucas has said (and been backed up by statements from Kathleen Kennedy and Disney) that he won't have creative control over the new SW films. I would think he MIGHT have a little input on things like the deaths of characters or aspects of the film that he might believe would seriously undermine the franchise. But stylistic aspects of filmmaking I seriously doubt would be on that list. So I don't expect that Abrams will be sent back to film school--I think he was hired because the Star Trek movies were successful and Disney and Kathleen Kennedy want to duplicate that success by updating the style of the SW films.



So I guess sci-fi fans have little more to look forward to then a couple of flavors of sci-fi?

Vanilla, Chocolate - maybe, if we're lucky - strawberry. 

All to placate the egos of a few successfull men.

Directors are supposed to adopt their own vision and interpretation of the script,

but they are not supposed to radically diverge from the intent of the storytellers.

I know that they legally can, if the owner of the intellectual property sells away creative control.

That's why the worse thing Roddenberry ever did was sell away all his rights to Trek before even TAS came out.

He was hired for TAS and TNG not because they had to, but because they were afraid of the fans.

They are no longer afraid of long time fans from what I can tell, and haven't been for quite some time.

I haven't seen Roddenberry's original vision of mankind successfully struggling to improve and better itself reflected in Star Trek for quite some time.


Now it seems it's becoming almost impossible to get a movie made unless everyone bows down to less then a handful of powerful egomaniacs.

Welcome to the wonderful world of homogeny.


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

jbond said:


> It's the most ridiculous number, and therefore preferred for this thread.


What is ridiculous about it? It is a fictional ship; one that does not exist.
It actually, can be any lenght the designer wants it to be.

Just saying...
Andy


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Well, you clearly loved the Star Wars prequels and want to see more SW movies in that vein. My view is that Abrams will be able to tell a more entertaining SW story than Lucas has demonstrated he's capable of telling at the moment. And I do think that Abrams will collaborate with the writer(s), Disney and Kathleen Kennedy to arrive at something they all want to make. I simply don't think that he will be "sent back to film school" like some whipping boy just because that's what a few disgruntled fans want.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jbond said:


> Well, you clearly loved the Star Wars prequels and want to see more SW movies in that vein. My view is that Abrams will be able to tell a more entertaining SW story than Lucas has demonstrated he's capable of telling at the moment. And I do think that Abrams will collaborate with the writer(s), Disney and Kathleen Kennedy to arrive at something they all want to make. I simply don't think that he will be "sent back to film school" like some whipping boy just because that's what a few disgruntled fans want.


Maybe not.

But as to how many fans will be worried about this,
it is too soon to tell.

I'm a fan of both Trek and Star Wars.

If fans of Star Wars - no matter what the percentage or number - are found to be worried about this choice . . .

a fair question is "Why?"

Is it without reason that they would be worried?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Hey, jbond!

You're at 1701 posts! Congratulations! 

That being said, remember where you are: * "I Hate the JJ Prise:"*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz50_MWWKwg

:wave:


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Yes, I agree Abrams will have some artistic freedom. No doubt there were long discussions between Abrams and Disney about vision and direction and they agreed that they could come up with something satisfactory to all parties. I took the earlier post as implying they liked JJ enough to give him free reign but they're probably are going to be more careful with the Star Wars property than Paramount was with Star Trek. It will be interesting to see what input Mr. Lucas will have.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

fire91bird said:


> Yes, I agree Abrams will have some artistic freedom. No doubt there were long discussions between Abrams and Disney about vision and direction and they agreed that they could come up with something satisfactory to all parties. I took the earlier post as implying they liked JJ enough to give him free reign but they're probably are going to be more careful with the Star Wars property than Paramount was with Star Trek. It will be interesting to see what input Mr. Lucas will have.


I guarantee you that there will be a collection of people who will have veto power over what he does and, if he resists them and is unwilling to go along with the program, they can and will fire him. That's true of any production, I'm sure, but the powers that be in the Disney SW franchise will not hesitate to protect their property if he attempts to neo-goth it.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I guarantee you that there will be a collection of people who will have veto power over what he does and, if he resists them and is unwilling to go along with the program, they can and will fire him. That's true of any production, I'm sure, but the powers that be in the Disney SW franchise will not hesitate to protect their property if he attempts to neo-goth it.


Yep, that's what I was sayin'.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

fire91bird said:


> Yep, that's what I was sayin'.


Yes, I was emphatically agreeing with you, sir :wave:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Now if you want to read something really sucko by ole' JJ then dig up his script mistreatment for Superman which he wrote before the Superman Returns script was drafted. He had Krypton being destroyed in a civil war and also had Superman's powers coming from his costume,which btw was a living symbiote that was stored in a can! Nope, JJ never heard of Venom before. It's all just a big coincidence! No worries. Star Wars is in FINE HANDS! Maybe JJ will be so busy doing Star Wars that he will loose interest in Star Trek and wander off. Then hopefully the studio will hire someone that will return the timeline to normal or in the very least blow up that abomination of a so called starship and bring back the real TOS Enterprise.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

It looks like JJ is becoming the Freddy Freiberger on our time.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

mach7 said:


> It looks like JJ is becoming the Freddy Freiberger on our time.


He's taking Dean Devlin's place after he screwed up how Godzilla looks and acts in that horrible excuse for a kaiju movie back in '98.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/millions-of-human-beings-experiencing-actual-emoti,31035/


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

mach7 said:


> It looks like JJ is becoming the Freddy Freiberger on our time.


Not a bad analogy. Not perfect, since Freiberger was handed a show that was in the process of being shut down by both Paramount and NBC and large chunks of the writing and production staff heading for the door, so he had a pretty lousy hand to begin with, whereas JJ was given the kind of budget and carte blanche that Roddenberry & Co. could only dream of, and promptly put together a script that wouldn't have made it into any self respecting fanzine.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I can't disagree with any of that, and he also ruined Space 1999. So both JJ and Freddy can ruin 2 Science Fiction franchises.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

mach7 said:


> I can't disagree with any of that, and he also ruined Space 1999. So both JJ and Freddy can ruin 2 Science Fiction franchises.


Amen to that...


----------



## Dave in RI (Jun 28, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...I think the estimate of 5836 feet is fairly accurate if you want everything seen onscreen to fit as seen inside a real ship.
> 
> There are those, such as the author of the Ex Astris Scienta who argue that the shuttlebay should just be ignored.
> 
> ...


This reminds me alot of what us Jupiter 2 fans go through reconciling the interior sets with the exterior shape and size. Believe me, it's an impossible exercise and you'll only hurt yourself trying to do it. :wave:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

The lack of proper scaling and upscaling by ILM is one aspect of the JJPrise that makes me discount it completely as something I could ever consider building. As someone mentioned, ships like the J2, Spindrift, etc. all have interior/exterior issues when you try to reconcile the shooting sets with the filming models, but that was back when people didn't work so hard to make sure that everything made sense.

For decades, we've become used to filmmakers and TV productions making a sensible effort for everything to appear to fit as it should. The JJPrise and its nebulous scaling flies in the face of every genre ship that came before it. It's as though they decided that scaling doesn't matter (to anyone) and just upsized the ship to make it look better on camera.

If it weren't for the thing looking as out of proportion as it does, the lack of scaling just sends me away shaking my head.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

A thought just occurred to me for what would have been the perfect team to direct and write SW-VII: Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kazdan. Look at what they did together with Raiders of the Lost Ark.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> A thought just occurred to me for what would have been the perfect team to direct and write SW-VII: Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kazdan. Look at what they did together with Raiders of the Lost Ark.


Couldn't agree more.:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Spielberg did direct the lightsaber fight in ROTS, so it's not like he's completely unfamiliar with the material.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Spielberg did direct the lightsaber fight in ROTS, so it's not like he's completely unfamiliar with the material.


From what I've read he helped Lucas _design_ that sequence (among others) during pre-production, but he didn't direct it. Also, he has reportedly stated that he doesn't want to direct a Star Wars movie, citing in one interview "It's not my genre. It's my best friend George's genre."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Steven once said he brings the aliens to Earth, and lets George take us out to the aliens.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It sounds like Abrams is directing at least the first two movies in the series and Lucas thinks he's the perfect man for the job.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

John P said:


> Steven once said he brings the aliens to Earth, and lets George take us out to the aliens.


 Maybe he'll take the aliens out to lunch?! 

This is another sad part of the Star Wars saga (NOW being owned by Jisney) . What's next? The Care Bears dancing around in Stormtrooper armour in Ice Capades? 

~ Chris​


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

jbond said:


> It sounds like Abrams is directing at least the first two movies in the series and Lucas thinks he's the perfect man for the job.


At this point, that's corporate happy talk. We'll see how perfect JJ is once things actually get rolling.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

This thread should be re-named "I hate JJ Abrams and his Enterprise"


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

While I'm not a fan of Abrams, and don't really consider the 2009 film 'good' Star Trek (most of the later films also weren't 'good Star Trek') what I'm most upset about, is JJ having his hands deep in two major franchises that should be catering to two different sci-fi crowds.

They will get muddled in concept and the only thing that will be different are the names of the ships and the characters.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> They will get muddled in concept and the only thing that will be different are the names of the ships and the characters.


I agree. This is hardly worthy of _Star Trek_ that promoted I.D.I.C. ("Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations").



whiskeyrat said:


> This thread should be re-named "I hate JJ Abrams and his Enterprise"


Well, it's not _personal _against J.J. Some of us don't care for his work on_ Star Trek_ and some other movies he's done.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

LOL!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ps-pretending-to-like-star-trek-2013012857560


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

whiskeyrat said:


> This thread should be re-named "I hate JJ Abrams and his Enterprise"


No, I liked Fringe and the first 2 seasons of lost were good.

I was excited to hear he was going to do the new Trek.

Unfortunately I was severely disappointed with the 2009 movie 
AND the JJprise.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Must....chime....in...!!

Also not a fan of J.J. Trek.

He said he was more a Star Wars guy and it showed in the Star Trek movie.

A ship with the power to destroy an entire planet?
A farm boy...getting into a brawl in a bar?
An older mentor that helps guide farm boy?
An antagonistic partner turned loyal companion?

Where did he come up with such novel story concepts?!

My only hope for the J.J.prise is that is was Pike's ship and gets destroyed in the next movie. It does look like it hits the water in a brief clip...

Then maybe they can present one that is closer to the Jefferies' elegant version.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The ship hitting the water is another starship, sorry.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jbond said:


> The ship hitting the water is another starship, sorry.


darn.....


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> LOL!
> 
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ps-pretending-to-like-star-trek-2013012857560


I wonder how many people are going to read that and think it's real... :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

jbond said:


> The ship hitting the water is another starship, sorry.


It's not necessarily being destroyed judging from the beginning of the movie. It may just be a "crash dive" for whatever star_sub_ it happened to be.  :freak:

Maybe J.J. is a fan of _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_, too.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's not necessarily being destroyed judging from the beginning of the movie. It may just be a "crash dive" for whatever star_sub_ it happened to be.  :freak:
> 
> Maybe J.J. is a fan of _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_, too.


If so then maybe the JJPrise will be attacked by a giant bug eyed seaweed monster and also have a flying sub.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> If so then maybe the JJPrise will be attacked by a giant bug eyed seaweed monster and also have a flying sub.


Yeah! The flying sub could be stowed where the captain's yachts have been on some other starships--centered underneath the primary hull. :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

MOSUGOJI said:


> If so then maybe the JJPrise will be attacked by a giant bug eyed seaweed monster and also have a flying sub.


Star Trek XIII: Captain Kirk and the Great Vegetable Rebellion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Star Trek XIII: Captain Kirk and the Great Vegetable Rebellion.



Hey now!!! 
Please don't tell me we have a hipster in our midst! 

Only hipsters and yuppies consider seaweed a vegetable! :tongue:

The rest of us usually refer to it as "that cr*p that gets stuck in your propeller!"


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Have any of you seen the picture of the assembled JJPrise kit on page 23 of the JJPrise is coming thread?

I still think the nacelles look ridiculous,

but the overall ship, if you throw attempts to scale her out the window,
doesn't look as unreasonable as it did in the movie.


Personally, I'm attributing the ridiculous and countless use of the shaky camera / lens flare (aren't we supposed to consider ourselves unseen witnesses? not watching something a crew member filmed on break while holding a personal camcorder?)

technique of filming might have had a lot to do with it. 

Not a big fan of hysterical film method used to overdramatize key moments in the film.

It's annoying and makes the action more confusing - not more dramatic.

More and most importantly, it really distorts your perception of the special effects. 

Anyhow, again the kit somehow makes her look more attractive and reasonable then the ship appeared in the movie, attempts to scale her aside.

But considered alongside an old AMT 22" Refit or an old 23" (? going by memory) Cutaway TOS E, it doesn't look as weird as on might think from the movie(again, the issue of nacelles and scale aside).

I know what a lot of you are going to say, "But the nacelles ARE there!"

And you are right, of course.

Just saying that I'm surprised by how much more reasonable the kit looks then the perception of the JJPrise, given by the Helter/Skelter cinematography of the movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The rest of us usually refer to it as "that cr*p that gets stuck in your propeller!"


Spoken like someone who is very familiar with the Gulf of Mexico. 

Anyways, at least seaweed isn't alien like whatever probably got stuck in the vents of the JJ-prise as it hung out underwater near the beginning of the new movie.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hey now!!!
> Please don't tell me we have a hipster in our midst!
> 
> Only hipsters and yuppies consider seaweed a vegetable! :tongue:
> ...


No, no hipsterism or vegetarianism intended. In what passes for my brain I somehow combined "Irwin Allen" and "seaweed" and immediately thought of the cheesiest Allen production involving plant life ever produced. Just a failed attempt at humor; quite often these things sound funnier in my head.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, maybe we should change the name to the Battlestar Seaviewprise...?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> So, maybe we should change the name to the Battlestar Seaviewprise...?


No, I think your post on the "Da JJ-prise is acomin'" thread has brought up another possibility:



Captain April said:


> ip
> 
> It looks like a cartoon parody of the Enterprise that was designed during an acid trip.
> 
> In other words, for those who complain that the original ship is "too sixties", if anything, it's the JJPrise that looks like something from the 1960's!


"The Yellow Submarinerprise!"


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No, I think your post on the "Da JJ-prise is acomin'" thread has brought up another possibility:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Yellow Submarinerprise!"


:roll:

How many places in the world's oceans would the sub in submarine be doable?

Considering she'd be about a mile long and about 2700 feet wide at the saucer, you'd pretty much have to drop her in the Mariana Trench to keep the Saucer and Nacelles from sticking out of the water in most of the world's oceans.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

1400 feet should do it.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Come to think of it the JJPrise looks vaguely familiar. It reminds me of those long ago attempts at drawing the Enterprise that my friends and I did way back in 1st and 2nd grade. We screwed up the proportions in a very similar manner as the JJPrise has. At least we had an excuse back then being 7 years old and next to no reference material. And to think that we scribbled almost the exact same thing and didn't get paid a zillion dollars for it like JJ's artists did!


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

mosugoji said:


> come to think of it the jjprise looks vaguely familiar. It reminds me of those long ago attempts at drawing the enterprise that my friends and i did way back in 1st and 2nd grade. We screwed up the proportions in a very similar manner as the jjprise has. At least we had an excuse back then being 7 years old and next to no reference material. And to think that we scribbled almost the exact same thing and didn't get paid a zillion dollars for it like jj's artists did!


bingo!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No, I think your post on the "Da JJ-prise is acomin'" thread has brought up another possibility:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Yellow Submarinerprise!"


*I love it!! :thumbsup:*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> *I love it!! :thumbsup:*


I did it all for you, sir! Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile!  :thumbsup:


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

There's going to be a LOT of build threads for this kit when it finally is released. Prepare yourselves! I might even get one just to use the saucer and nacelles for a bash, something that looks better and sharper than this ship, sort of a nose-thumb at Ryan Church and Abrams. I get the feeling if one reshaped the secondary hull entirely it might actually be a semi-decent looking vessel. Maybe. Any theories on what that other ship in the trailer is? the one we see ditching into San Francisco bay at the end of the trailer for the new movie?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

whiskeyrat said:


> Any theories on what that other ship in the trailer is? the one we see ditching into San Francisco bay at the end of the trailer for the new movie?


My guess is it may be a ship commandeered by Benedict Cumberbatch's character. In the trailer you see him sitting in the captian's chair of a starship, but not the Enterprise.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

PixelMagic said:


> My guess is it may be a ship commandeered by Benedict Cumberbatch's character. In the trailer you see him sitting in the captian's chair of a starship, but not the Enterprise.


The nacelles almost look like they are similar to those on the Enterprise E...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


>


Okay, who's gonna be the first to kitbash this one?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

You guys may get your wish...


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

PixelMagic said:


> You guys may get your wish...


I only hope that this IS the final voyage of that Enterprise.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Yeah, it still looks like crap.


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

Yes but will the next one be worse? Wait a minute not sure they could do a worse job on the next one is it even possible?


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

HA! Where did those images come from?


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Quick! Somebody photoshop the real Enterprise into the picture firing phasers at the JJPrise!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

whiskeyrat said:


> HA! Where did those images come from?


They're from the new trailer that premiered during the Stupor Bowl.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MOSUGOJI said:


> Quick! Somebody photoshop the real Enterprise into the picture firing phasers at the JJPrise!


Gimme some time, I've had a busy week...


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

sunburn800 said:


> Yes but will the next one be worse? Wait a minute not sure they could do a worse job on the next one is it even possible?


He could always base it on this Enterprise.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I hear that they blow up earth at the end of the movie. :freak:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Is it just me or does the JJPrise look exceptionally cartoony and CGI'd in those pictures? Oh well,you just can't beat a good physical studio model.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Ha! I suspected as much...

I must be mind-melding with the guys at Paramount.

I figured there might be some JJ-prise destruction happening because:
1) The 1st version would then be equivalent to a "pilot/Pike" version of the original series.

2) And MOST Importantly...
NEW TOYS for the studio to sell (it is, after all, a business). They need to alter the next ship enough to make new product, like every year there is a new model of the same name car.

I wonder if they have "new" phasers and communicators too...

Selling movie tickets might be the smallest part of any popular franchise.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

I read that some changes were made to the communicators and tricorders to make them more like the original series ones,not sure about any changes to those ugly chrome phasers.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I predict if they really change the Enterprise design for the third movie, the new design will be hated even more than the first one. From what I've read, the earlier concepts for the ship looked absolutely nothing like the traditional Enterprise layout, and they only steered back to something that resembled the original design late in the game. So be careful what you wish for.

BTW I was just watching the documentaries on the new TNG blu-rays and one of Roddenberry's first ideas for TNG was that there would be no starship Enterprise, and that they would just have a transporter that could beam the crew anywhere in the galaxy. Oh Gene Roddenberry, you are SO JJ Abrams!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jbond said:


> I predict if they really change the Enterprise design for the third movie, the new design will be hated even more than the first one. From what I've read, the earlier concepts for the ship looked absolutely nothing like the traditional Enterprise layout, and they only steered back to something that resembled the original design late in the game. So be careful what you wish for.
> 
> BTW I was just watching the documentaries on the new TNG blu-rays and one of Roddenberry's first ideas for TNG was that there would be no starship Enterprise, and that they would just have a transporter that could beam the crew anywhere in the galaxy. Oh Gene Roddenberry, you are SO JJ Abrams!


Well, they already established their (derivative) "look" for starships in the first movie, so I'm thinking saucer and secondary hull in some shape or form...

As for a "transporter that could beam the crew anywhere in the galaxy" - maybe that's where "Stargate" got it's idea... :tongue:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually, when the JJ-prise is damaged in movie 2, maybe JJ can sneak another cameo of R2-D2 in there in the debris, like he did in the wreckage of the fleet in movie 1.






If he wants to be really creative, he can make it a piece of C3PO.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> Is it just me or does the JJPrise look exceptionally cartoony and CGI'd in those pictures? Oh well,you just can't beat a good physical studio model.


Sure you could!!!!

Just build the real thing and film it in outer space!!!!!:tongue:



Now that I think about it, if tommorrow, a group of scientists developed every bit of technology for us to be able to build a starship that could travel virtually anywhere in the universe almost instantly

would we even build such a ship these days?


We used to dream of colonizing Mars. If we kept up the dedication we had during the Apollo program these last forty years we'd probably have colonies on the moon and Mars by now.

Now it's a fight just to spend enough money to keep bridges from collapsing.

I miss the Cold War.
We weren't a nation of self-absorbed couch potatoes then.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Actually, when the JJ-prise is damaged in movie 2, maybe JJ can sneak another cameo of R2-D2 in there in the debris, like he did in the wreckage of the fleet in movie 1.
> 
> R2D2 in the latest Star Trek movie - YouTube
> 
> If he wants to be really creative, he can make it a piece of C3PO.



That is freaking hilarious!!!!

Thanks!

I needed that!!!!! :wave:


----------



## SFCOM1 (Sep 3, 2002)

That is a really tosted ship. Looks like the starbord nacelle is trashed, the impulse deck looks demolished, and several major hull breaches. And to boot the second picture looks like they have no power (running lights all off).

And if the other rummors are true about earth. Then this version of the Federation is just as dead as Vulcan is. I really doubt there will be a third movie. 

This will be the end of this "trek".

I wonder how bad "JJ" will mess up Star Wars too.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Well, personally I didn't much care for what Lucas did with it, so who knows. JJ said he was more a Star Wars guy anyway, so he may actually do ok by it.

I wonder if he will sneak an Enterprise into the rebel fleet somewhere like he snuck R2 into ST movie 1.

He'd have to kind of hide it though, so maybe he'll use lens flares in Star Wars too!

The true purpose of the lens flare.... :tongue:


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

Sorry, but R2D2 has no place in ANY other film than the crap fest star wars. The fact it gets thrown into other movies just cheapens those movies. It cant possibly cheapen star wars any more though, they're already abysmally pathetic.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

R2 D2 didn't ruin my appreciation for Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

BTW you're not allowed to say anything nice about JJ Abrams in this thread; hate and venom only, please!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Just think how awesome a remaster of Star Wars (the original) would be!

The rebel fleet leaves the 4th moon of Yavin, assembling in space as they approach the Death Star.

And in the background of the congregation of X-Wings and Y-Wings...

The U.S.S. Enterprise!!!

Are you saying that wouldn't be EPIC?!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dang! I found this from 2009:










From here: http://www.startrek.com/boards-topi...ig-huge-E-39-s-true-size-_1259078271_33337120


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jbond said:


> R2 D2 didn't ruin my appreciation for Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
> 
> BTW you're not allowed to say anything nice about JJ Abrams in this thread; hate and venom only, please!


I don't hate JJA, I just don't see much of Star Trek in his Star Trek.

Ever since TWOK, it's been mostly about fighting the bad guy. But at least TWOK had its origin in the original story of a eugenics war - a tragic outcome of trying to breed a master race.

Even with the cheesy no-budget effects in the 60's, ST managed to deal with topics like inequality

The Cloud Minders
Kirk: Unaccustomed to light and warmth? Those are necessary for all humanoids - surely you don't deny it to the Troglytes.

Now it's pretty much - Bad guy shows up. Fight the bad guy.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Ever since TWOK, it's been mostly about fighting the bad guy....
> 
> Now it's pretty much - Bad guy shows up. Fight the bad guy.


That's essentially it. They simply have no clue how to tell any other kind of story.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Well, clearly this began long before JJ Abrams--to me the difference is, at least Abrams knows HOW to do this kind of story on the big screen. It is not getting Patrick Stewart in a tank top on some lame bluescreen set or hanging him on wires over a deflector dish. "Event" movies have headed in this direction and to do an event movie, you need action and conflict on a large scale. Earlier Trek films did try to get a "message" in there but that didn't necessarily make for a better film (and we haven't seen Into Darkness so we really have no idea what the content of it is).
Eventually you will get the kind of Trek you want, and it will be on TELEVISION, which is where MOST sophisticated drama is happening now, not in the movies. Big event movies are driven by visual effects and action. But by doing those elements well in the 2009 Trek film, Abrams made Trek viable again to a younger audience and as a money-making franchise for Paramount. If that had not happened, Trek would be dead and buried. So while you might not be getting the kind of Trek you want right now, sooner or later you will--and it will be because of JJ Abrams.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> Ever since TWOK, it's been mostly about fighting the bad guy.


_Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ was also about "fighting the bad guy". The only difference was that V'Ger didn't realize it _was_ the bad guy; it was simply following it's programming with no concept of the negative consequences that could result.



jbond said:


> ...Abrams made Trek viable again to a younger audience and as a money-making franchise for Paramount...


Bingo. Paramount's main goal with the 2009 movie was to attract new fans to keep the Star Trek franchise alive--the "next generation" of fans, if you will. And the 2009 movie apparently did well enough at the box office for Paramount to give J.J. another shift at the helm.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Zombie_61 said:


> _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ was also about "fighting the bad guy". The only difference was that V'Ger didn't realize it _was_ the bad guy; it was simply following it's programming with no concept of the negative consequences that could result.


Well, ST The Movie was a bloated episode of The Changling. That original tv story was an interesting premise of 2 alien automations and the inadvertent hybrid it created.

JJA did breathe some life back into the franchise, but there isn't even a hint of it reflecting back to illuminate any social or political commentary. It's pure escapism now.

The original Star Wars served its own purpose of providing a new mythology for a modern era, something lost before the Knights of the Roundtable was updated into Lucas' creation.

Star Trek would have been back on the screen again in some fashion eventually. Like the Superman and Batman franchises, it's always just a matter of time.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> Well, ST The Movie was a bloated episode of The Changling. That original tv story was an interesting premise of 2 alien automations and the inadvertent hybrid it created.
> 
> JJA did breath some life back into the franchise, but there isn't even a hint of it reflecting back to illuminate any social or political commentary. It's pure escapism now.


I don't disagree. Apparently, escapism is what Paramount thinks Trek has become, or that it's what modern fans want. Realistically, the idealism of the original series was lost long ago.



J_Indy said:


> Star Trek would have been back on the screen again in some fashion eventually. Like the Superman and Batman franchises, it's always just a matter of time.


But it _is_ back on the screen again. The fact that some of us don't particularly care for the direction it's taken is irrelevant, especially to the Powers That Be at Paramount.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Zombie_61 said:


> I don't disagree. Apparently, escapism is what Paramount thinks Trek has become, or that it's what modern fans want. Realistically, the idealism of the original series was lost long ago.
> 
> But it _is_ back on the screen again. The fact that some of us don't particularly care for the direction it's taken is irrelevant, especially to the Powers That Be at Paramount.


I agree. But I also think that even if JJA had failed miserably, just give it some more time. Someone would eventually get another crack at it.

That it is back in the form it is in, sort of makes me not see it as Star Trek (except in name only).


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> I agree. But I also think that even if JJA had failed miserably, just give it some more time. Someone would eventually get another crack at it.


I concur. The Star Trek franchise has been one of Paramount's biggest cash cows for decades; I can't imagine them not doing everything possible to keep the old gal hydrated and lactating so they can squeeze every last drop of milk from her.



J_Indy said:


> That it is back in the form it is in, sort of makes me not see it as Star Trek (except in name only).


That's the way I've felt about everything that came after the original series, except for maybe the "original cast" movies. Welcome to the party! :wave:


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

Warped9 said:


> That's essentially it. They simply have no clue how to tell any other kind of story.


Actually, love and hate aside, companies make movies like that because the audience don't have the patients to sit there and watch character stories and the like unfold, they just want action action action.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

secretreeve said:


> Actually, love and hate aside, companies make movies like that because the audience don't have the patients to sit there and watch character stories and the like unfold, they just want action action action.


Sorry, but that's nonsense. No one is asking for a _Lincoln_ or _The King's Speech_ or _The Shawshank Redemption._ But there are plenty of good films that are well received yet aren't mindless nonstop action pieces. Your argument works only if you're targeting essentially adolescents.

Note that TOS was multi-layered. Young viewers could enjoy it for its visual appeal and adventure yet the show was written on an adult level. But JJ's Trek goes for little more than the Saturday morning kiddie crowd.

Sadly there are superhero and even action films that are smarter and more adult level than what Trek has become.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Sadly there are superhero and even action films that are smarter and more adult level than what Trek has become.


IF they were to get away from the formulaic "ensemble" casting aspect of the films and tighten their focus on certain characters, there could be a great movie made in the Star Trek universe. I've been wishing for this for some time now but, so far, none of the powers that be are willing to take that gamble. That may be additional proof that movies are not the best format for Star Trek. Series television, even on limited basis with short season (as with "The Walking Dead" or "True Blood") would be better for ST, IMHO.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Warped9 said:


> Sorry, but that's nonsense. No one is asking for a _Lincoln_ or _The King's Speech_ or _The Shawshank Redemption._ But there are plenty of good films that are well received yet aren't mindless nonstop action pieces. Your argument works only if you're targeting essentially adolescents.
> 
> Note that TOS was multi-layered. Young viewers could enjoy it for its visual appeal and adventure yet the show was written on an adult level. But JJ's Trek goes for little more than the Saturday morning kiddie crowd.
> 
> Sadly there are superhero and even action films that are smarter and more adult level than what Trek has become.


People tend to forget that even having a black woman or Asian (this during the Vietnam War) or Russian (during the Cold War) on the same ship was a social commentary in itself at the time.

There are plenty of issues of the day that can be reflected in a Star Trek movie without being dull. 

Not every TOS episode dealt with social or political issues. Some were pure sci-fi, some were just bad. All had cheesy effects compared to today.

But there was at times an attempt to provoke some thought or elevate a bigger idea (on the race relations issue - a violent topic at the time, it was constant just by the ensemble.)

Now, it's pretty much - Bad guy shows up. Fight the bad guy.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The Trek movies have NEVER matched the sophistication of the TV series, even when movies ostensibly featured more sophisticated drama overall than what's found on television (which is not the case now). Even The Wrath of Khan featured some obviously juvenile elements like Scotty's spunky nephew (even though most of that was cut out of the picture).
One thing the Abrams movie did that TOS used to do, and that you rarely see in the movies, was to show the central characters displaying real character flaws, in particular Spock's relationship with Uhura and his struggle to control his own emotions. Whether you like how that was handled or not, to me it was much more interesting than watching 50-60-year old characters who had everything figured out and could lecture everyone else in the movie from above.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Just think how awesome a remaster of Star Wars (the original) would be!
> 
> The rebel fleet leaves the 4th moon of Yavin, assembling in space as they approach the Death Star.
> 
> ...


Not an Abrams thing, but the TOS E appeared in the colonial fleet at least once in the 2004 Battlestar Galactica series. I always wondered why they didn't lead them to Earth. They apparently have much better star charts.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> I don't disagree. Apparently, escapism is what Paramount thinks Trek has become, or that it's what modern fans want. Realistically, the idealism of the original series was lost long ago.


Agreed. I'd pinpoint the last notable occurance to have been the final episode of TNGeneration.

In which the Trial of Mankind that opened the first episode of TNG was concluded, largely due to Picard's successfull defense, and humanity wasn't snuffed out of existence.

It's easy to see Roddenberry's vision for the original series in Picard's defense of mankind.


But even TNG had strayed by then and the final episode would probably have never been written the way it was if Roddenberry hadn't set it up that way years earlier.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I agree that JJA includes some drama (or maybe more accurately, melodrama) in the new Star Trek. 

The good Star Trek stories usually had some comment interwoven in the plot. Often it was terse, so as not to be preachy (and they didn't have a lot of time for long, winding dialogue anyway).

IMO, some examples are:

The Cloud Minders
Kirk: Unaccustomed to light and warmth? That's necessary for all humanoids, surely you don't deny it to the Troglytes.

The original story (modified/censored by the network) had nothing to do with unseen gas retarding the surface dwellers. They were inferior by caste system, consigned to their fate by the ruling power of the elites.
Kirk's comment addresses an inequality bred from the belief in birthrights and contempt for another social/economic group. This is still relevant today.

Space Seed
Spock: Because the scientists overlooked one fact - superior ability breeds superior ambition.

This is a comment about science without "soul" - a desire to plunge ahead without recognizing the foibles and harsher weaknesses innate in human psychology. (This was also the subject of "Where No Man Has Gone Before")
This is ironically (deliberately) preceded (or is it followed?) by Khan's own statement:
Khan: Oh, there has been technical advancement - but how little man himself has changed.

Mirror, Mirror
Spock: One man cannot summon the future.
Kirk But one man can change the present.

This is the evil Spock's terse dismissal of his personal responsibility, content to be a cog in a machine that performs evil and profits him, like the bureaucrats of the Nazi machinery of WW II.
Kirk's comment was more poignant at the time, because MLK had been marching in the civil rights movement, changing what was "the present".

Also, the brevity and succinctness of Spock's comment is well written.

And there were more heavy-handed stories like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield".


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

J_Indy said:


> Mirror, Mirror
> Spock: One man cannot summon the future.
> Kirk But one man can change the present.


Kirk: In every revolution, there's one man with a vision.
Spock: Captain Kirk, I shall consider it.

Return to Tomorrow (IIRC)
Kirk: ... Risk is our business, it's what this Starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her. 
(Yes, Later parodied in Free Enterprise) 

We love the special effects (all of us do). It hooked us as kids when we watched reruns not understanding anything about the stories. 

But it is the writing that has stood the test of time. Certainly, there are some stinkers, but one day, I believe we will return to that universe. Much like the cycles that Batman and others have gone through. I just think the writers of that time (world / Life experiences of the time) did a better job. 

I'll hope the new movie is entertaining, nothing more.. we've lost our way.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

GREAT comments, Hubert! I even heard them in the voice of Captain Kirk! See below:




hubert said:


> Weeee love the special effects! All of us do!
> 
> I----t hooked us as kids--when. Weee watched reruns NOT understanding anything--about the stories.
> 
> ...


:wave:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

hubert said:


> But it is the writing that has stood the test of time. Certainly, there are some stinkers, but one day, I believe we will return to that universe. Much like the cycles that Batman and others have gone through. I just think the writers of that time (world / Life experiences of the time) did a better job.
> 
> I'll hope the new movie is entertaining, nothing more.. we've lost our way.


Good science fiction writers were trying to get their stuff on TV back then. TV was not as worn out a medium as it is now.

Good writing though, usually has some commentary to make, but the network censors didn't want anything controversial associated with the ad time they had to sell to dish soap companies.

So the good writers would hide their commentary in sci-fi/fantasy stories, using them as metaphors. The ad people looked at that genre as one level above cartoon, and let a lot of things slip by. Exactly what the writers wanted. This is why many of the original Twilight Zone episodes were also little morality tales, hidden in bizarre settings and stories.

Or there's always - Bad guy shows up. Fight the bad guy. :tongue:

Star Trek at its best is science fiction. Star Wars at its best is space fantasy. That is not a put-down on Star Wars. It filled a void for a mythology in the modern era that King Arthur could not.

But there is a distinction between the two. Or was.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Good science fiction writers were trying to get their stuff on TV back then. TV was not as worn out a medium as it is now.
> 
> Good writing though, usually has some commentary to make, but the network censors didn't want anything controversial associated with the ad time they had to sell to dish soap companies.
> 
> ...


Well said. :thumbsup:


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

J_Indy said:


> Star Trek at its best is science fiction. Star Wars at its best is space fantasy. That is not a put-down on Star Wars. It filled a void for a mythology in the modern era that King Arthur could not.
> 
> But there is a distinction between the two. Or was.


To quote another favorite - "your wisdom forged this ring". 

Unfortunately (or fortunately) w/ Lawrence Kasdan working SW script(s) it may flip-flop around --- LOL.

To be fair (and as stated before) the sellout started a LONG, LONG time ago. We certainly understand. It's how the box office numbers are made... Expand here, water-down there. More special effects -- sure. One-liners, of course. Action, you got it. 

Perhaps I put too much faith in a little TV show I thought was bigger than it was. Many of you probably liked it also when it was uncool. Thats the impression, I've gotten, at least. 

We loved the effects, the characters, the better than average research and writing but most of all we loved it's outlook. Where would we go and what could we attain if the pesky, little problems were put behind us. 

Perhaps it really was more space fantasy after all as _that_ future will never be attained. 

But boy, we could dream!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_Star Trek_ got popular. In the long view it was inevitable that it would be corrupted by those who "know better." 

Despite my criticisms of contemporary Trek I see this starting way back during the '80's films. After the first couple of films it began an incremental slide. It was forestalled for a time with some decent episodes in TNG, but the slide was still inevitable as the show got over-saturated on television and the movies continued to get dumber.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And we come to the inherent problem in adapting tv series to movies. A movie pretty much has to be about _*THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN THE CHARACTERS' LIVES*_, otherwise, why are we watching? By contrast, a television series *can't* be the most important event in the characters' lives, or there's no reason to tune in next week.

To follow this a bit further, movies don't have time to play with the character development, unless it's an art house film and the character development *IS* what the movie is about. TV series, on the other hand, can take a break from time to time, give Marshall Dillon a week off and do a story centered on Festus' long lost nephew who just blew into Dodge City. Then next week, we find out Doc has a daughter he didn't know about, that sort of thing. It doesn't always have to be about a gunfight out in front of the Longbranch.

A Gunsmoke movie, however, had better be building to precisely that conclusion or someone in the front office is gonna kvetch.

So, yeah, Star Trek should've stayed on television, because that's what it was created for and where it works best.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> So, yeah, Star Trek should've stayed on television, because that's what it was created for and where it works best.


I can't really argue with that.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Captain April said:


> And we come to the inherent problem in adapting tv series to movies. A movie pretty much has to be about _*THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN THE CHARACTERS' LIVES*_, otherwise, why are we watching?...


Precisely - that's essentially what someone (I don't know who) wrote about the difference: a movie is about the most important thing that happened in this character's life*, a TV episode is about the most important thing that happened inn this character's week.

* This was, apparently, before the age of interminable sequels.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> And we come to the inherent problem in adapting tv series to movies. A movie pretty much has to be about _*THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN THE CHARACTERS' LIVES*_, otherwise, why are we watching? By contrast, a television series *can't* be the most important event in the characters' lives, or there's no reason to tune in next week. . . .
> 
> So, yeah, Star Trek should've stayed on television, because that's what it was created for and where it works best.


And when you got really huge impact episodes like "City on the Edge of Forever," you wound up with a nice surprise--a special treat in that it's much more intense unlike most of the other "regular" episodes.

The realization that _Star Trek _with the original series characters and actors would have been much more than what it has turned out to be (that is with so few hours and stories to look back on now) has made _Star Trek: Phase II_ become the ultimate "what if" for the original series cast, IMHO. A new series at that time might have been _really _huge. 

A relatively short run of five years would have more than doubled the available episodes with the original cast (except for Nimoy who, I suspect, would have found his way back to the series eventually despite his hesitation to do so initially). 

The next generation, when it came, might have had significant differences from what we got as well. IDIC. Maybe in a parallel universe it happened . . .


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I suppose that's why I look back at TOS, TAS and TMP and pretty much write off the rest that followed. For me our heroes are still out there aboard the refit _E_ embarked on a second 5-year mission we never got see.

ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


----------



## wizardofthenorth (Feb 6, 2013)

the general shape of the JJ enterprise I like...the main deck, saucer flow nicely. Classic but a modern touch. But as mentioned...the nacelles though....uggg!!!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Warped9 said:


> I suppose that's why I look back at TOS, TAS and TMP and pretty much write off the rest that followed. For me our heroes are still out there aboard the refit _E_ embarked on a second 5-year mission we never got see.
> 
> ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


JJ-Trek is fine for what it is. I just wish they would deal with some bigger issues than whether or not Spock can get a date Saturday night.

Character development and a meaningful story don't have to be mutually exclusive.

And the JJprise saucer looks fine - but that's because it's the part least changed from the originals.

But since the 1st version will be known as the "pilot/Pike version" after it gets whacked in the next movie, let's see what "Kirk's version" (in TOS the "standard" version) looks like (maybe they roll it out at the end of the movie in drydock being rebuilt).

Maybe they made the 1st one fugly on purpose because they knew they would update it later and had to have someplace to take the design forward.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> And when you got really huge impact episodes like "City on the Edge of Forever," you wound up with a nice surprise--a special treat in that it's much more intense unlike most of the other "regular" episodes.
> 
> The realization that _Star Trek _with the original series characters and actors would have been much more than what it has turned out to be (that is with so few hours and stories to look back on now) has made _Star Trek: Phase II_ become the ultimate "what if" for the original series cast, IMHO. A new series at that time might have been _really _huge.
> 
> ...





Warped9 said:


> I suppose that's why I look back at TOS, TAS and TMP and pretty much write off the rest that followed. For me our heroes are still out there aboard the refit _E_ embarked on a second 5-year mission we never got see.
> 
> ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


I don't spend much time on Hobbytalk outside this forum,(or much time on the internet outside this forum either),

But since the conversation here has taken such an interesting turn I thought I would start a new thread about TV Trek and it's future potential in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy TV & Movie hobbytalk forum here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=386469

Anyone who is interested feel free to join in. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> I suppose that's why I look back at TOS, TAS and TMP and pretty much write off the rest that followed. For me our heroes are still out there aboard the refit _E_ embarked on a second 5-year mission we never got see.


You're absolutely correct. _Star Trek _for the most intense fans has always lived more in the imagination than it does on screen. It's almost as if what counts for the individual fan is the _potential _for what could have been on screen rather than what it ever actually achieved. That potential creates the mythology rather than the actual product itself creating it. But to do this, the series must never put a stake into the heart of the fans' imaginations and intellects. The mythological ST universe is what has been created. To go and rip it up destroys the mythology and forces a reset. It may be popular in the short term but what happens to the whole in the long term?

A good story is a prerequisite of course but a story can be performed on any stage. The established ST universe is as good as any, and, long time fans would argue, better than most. So why change it drastically?



Warped9 said:


> ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


Amen, brother!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


Yep.

That whole "Spokesman of the Prophets" (or whatever they called the nonsense, mystical, New Agey title they gave Sisko) storyline went so far as to make the series seem as much a fantasy series as it was a Sci-fi series.

I know they tried convoluted explanations at different times trying to claim that the worm-hole beings and the Bjorian fire cave beings were just some kind of competing aliens.

But I don't know any Trek fans that bought that.

It was obvious that by using terms like prophets, priests and priestesses, mystics, fire demons, time traveling oracles and orbs, etc; they were going way over the top towards creating a whole fantasy ethos that extended far into the established Trek universe if you paid any attention to it.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I hate to defend Star Wars (especially the prequels), but Lucas did put some pointed political commentary into Revenge of the Sith in particular, so you can't really say the SW films are devoid of any "message." Whether it was well-delivered is another thing.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I was never a _Star Wars_ fan, but it did have a charm to it, at least the original trilogy. The prequel trilogy lost that charm (for me anyway). It also didn't help they were telling a story everyone knew how it was going to end. As such there were no real surprises to it other than the _gee-whiz_ f/x. For me the Anakin/Vader story should have been something mostly in the background while delivering a story we had no real idea of how it would unfold.

In regards to trashing the JJprise. Yeah, it might happen in the next film, but it could also be a red herring in the trailers. Rumours of Earth being destroyed are essentially the same thing. This kind of stuff generates buzz which couldn't make JJ and company happier. It's exactly what they want. Yeah, they _might_ trash the ship, but only because they feel it's eminently disposable and can peddle another design/toy. And if they do trash it don't hold your breath to see something closer to the TOS _E_---these guys don't have that kind of talent or feeling. And candidly with what we've seen so far the JJverse doesn't deserve something like the TOS _E._ Why would I want that beautiful ship, that so nicely represents what _Star Trek_ was when it was good, manned by punk versions of our heroes?

No thank you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jbond said:


> I hate to defend Star Wars (especially the prequels), but Lucas did put some pointed political commentary into Revenge of the Sith in particular, so you can't really say the SW films are devoid of any "message." Whether it was well-delivered is another thing.


I enjoyed the original trilogy immensely.

The first pre-quel should have only been available to those under 10 who sent in enough cereal box-tops.

"Steam Boat Willy" reminiscent Jar Jar Binks aside, the whole movie was so ridiculously done I believe to this day it was designed to get kids to pester their parents into buying the DVD's(which they then would proceed to turture them with by watching them again, and again, and again),

the Star Wars snack food, lunch boxes, etc, etc, etc.

They took a Star Wars universe that was well developed and established,

made a prequel that was so darned ridiculous it was comical.

A seven year old boy defeating countless ships and a heavily armed space station in a ship he had only stumbled apon,

The "Force" being reduced to some sort of bacteria in the blood?

I could go on and on, but it appeared that the only people who gained anything from that movie was Lucas and the merchandisers. 

Most of us would like to forget that movie was ever made.

the last two movies made(2nd and 3rd pre-quels), 

were much better. I'm not sure what messages were in Revenge of the Sith, other then the age old lesson that there are always people lurking in the shadows looking to strike at times of weakness or misfortune.

I always thought that lesson, or message, fit in fairly seamlessly to the fairytale aspects of the original trilogy.

Perhaps it would have elevated the entire series of movies from a fairytale set in space into a more Shakesperian level of intrigue,

But to me it failed to do that because of that first darned pre-quel soured the milk so badly for me, 

that anything that might have been elevated the maturity of storyline in the next two prequels, just didn't.

Especially since they reminded you of the absurdity of the first movie by continuing to use the Binks character, as if Lucas was determined to use him no matter how many people hated the character and even though there was zero need to carry him into a second movie.

It just reminded us of and reinforced the childishness of the first prequel.

The first prequel to me ruined my appreciation of all three prequels, even though the last two weren't the kid-pandering merchandising machine the first one was.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I know some people think Star Trek is quaint with it's rose-colored glasses view of the future, but consider this:

Many a current NASA technician/astronaut were inspired to enter their field by watching Star Trek. This is the outcome that a "simple" television series had.

With many parents both going to work, the television was (for better or worse - often worse) a baby-sitter/distraction for plenty of children growing up.

Star Trek provided not just an escape to an exciting universe, but a basic moral grounding in viewing the world. Even perceived enemies could be seen as having their own nobility, though motivated by forces entirely removed from the familiar (both the Vietnam War and Cold War were current events at the time).

While the world is still in sad shape, many of the individuals who now populate the better half of it by being in (unfortunately - what is left of) the space industry can trace some inspiration back to Star Trek.

So yes, it was only a TV show. And yes, it presents an idealized version of where we would like to be. But as the saying goes - "For a man's reach should exceed his grasp - or what's a Heaven for?"

But first there needs to be a higher vision of what to reach for.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I suppose that's why I look back at TOS, TAS and TMP and pretty much write off the rest that followed. For me our heroes are still out there aboard the refit _E_ embarked on a second 5-year mission we never got see.
> 
> ST09 didn't start Trek's dumbing-down. It just did it whole cloth whereas what came before did it piece by piece.


I think that's a healthy viewpoint and I share it wholeheartedly. I remember when I saw TWOK, I couldn't help but feel slightly disappointed that it was many years after TMP with the Enterprise being relegated to a training vessel and it's officers as Academy instructors. I felt as though Trek fans were cheated out of many years of storytelling that took place after the V'ger encounter. There were one or two novels back in the 90's that expored this, but it was far less than I hoped for.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Gemini1999 said:


> I think that's a healthy viewpoint and I share it wholeheartedly. I remember when I saw TWOK, I couldn't help but feel slightly disappointed that it was many years after TMP with the Enterprise being relegated to a training vessel and it's officers as Academy instructors. I felt as though Trek fans were cheated out of many years of storytelling that took place after the V'ger encounter


I have to admit that I felt that way too. To go from the newly refit Enterprise to a trainee ship. Kirk went from Captain, which TMP showed was his true calling, to Admiral in TWOK and wasn't happy. And all those adventures in between we never got to see! I know, I know, it's just a work of fiction. But I had hoped for more....


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> I know some people think Star Trek is quaint with it's rose-colored glasses view of the future,


I think you are giving the average man and woman too much credit.

Over the years, long before it became popular to be a sci-fi nerd, I had friends and acquaintences I'd mention I liked sci-fi modeling and science fiction ask me why I liked Star Trek so much.

I'd try and explain that it came out at a time during the Cold War where almost everyone had a bleak and apocalyptic view of the future;

and that it provided a view, almost a blueprint, for a future in which mankind applied both principles and technology that helped mankind rise above all that.

I can count on one hand the number of people who I think really got my explanation. I could see their wheels spinning, but I don't think many at all got it. 





J_Indy said:


> Many a current NASA technician/astronaut were inspired to enter their field by watching Star Trek. This is the outcome that a "simple" television series had.
> 
> With many parents both going to work, the television was (for better or worse - often worse) a baby-sitter/distraction for plenty of children growing up.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

I think that while still, not too much larger a percentage of the population understands Trek,

many parents and even young adults realize 
they could do way worse then having kids 
obsessed with a Television show that preached acceptance, discipline, compassion,

and the study of science and engineering with an eye for the betterment of mankind.

There are countless parents who would give anything to have their kids become such a nerd, 

compared to what most teenage obsessions, addictions and peer pressure leads kids into.

I've never heard anyone say, "there goes my kid, the loser engineer!"


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

JJA's Trek is also darker/more cynical.

When Kirk opens fire on what is already a doomed ship, it is out of spite.

I think it would have been just as effective, and more in the spirit of Trek, to just have him say after the 'I would rather die a thousand deaths' part to have Kirk say

'You got it. Scotty, get us out of here.'

For some reason, it reminded me of the scene in Karate Kid (the original) when the ex-marine is teaching his students and when one of them is on the ground, he yells 'What are you waiting for? Finish him!'

I wasn't rooting for that guy.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Well actually, it is Kirk who suggests to Spock that now that they have the Romulan ship at their mercy, this was an opportunity to negotiate. And Spock says, "No, not this time." So Kirk obliterates them at Spock's behest. It's funny but I don't see people bringing that point up--of all the things to get outraged about the movie, people get hung up over the engineering room and other trivia, when here you have Spock, the voice of reason and pacifism throughout his tenure in the franchise, arguing for vengeance (now he also argues to go on offense in Balance of Terror, but that's another thing). You would think that would have Trekkies marching in the streets. It's particularly strange because Nero really is more of a pathetic villain, someone who is emotionally deranged and misguided, not a lip-smacking, arrogant villain like some of the others featured in the Trek movies. But the response is more out of contemporary action thrillers, where the heroes have to obliterate the bad guy.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jbond said:


> Well actually, it is Kirk who suggests to Spock that now that they have the Romulan ship at their mercy, this was an opportunity to negotiate. And Spock says, "No, not this time." So Kirk obliterates them at Spock's behest. It's funny but I don't see people bringing that point up--of all the things to get outraged about the movie, people get hung up over the engineering room and other trivia, when here you have Spock, the voice of reason and pacifism throughout his tenure in the franchise, arguing for vengeance (now he also argues to go on offense in Balance of Terror, but that's another thing). You would think that would have Trekkies marching in the streets. It's particularly strange because Nero really is more of a pathetic villain, someone who is emotionally deranged and misguided, not a lip-smacking, arrogant villain like some of the others featured in the Trek movies. But the response is more out of contemporary action thrillers, where the heroes have to obliterate the bad guy.


I'd have to go back and review that scene, but my recollection is that Kirk offers to lend assistance and is questioned by Spock. Spock (as far as I remember) does not ask Kirk to unload every weapon in the ship at Nero though.

I think it was a choice to do the scene that way so as not to portray Kirk as a "goody-two-shoes", but as I said, I think just grimly leaving them to their fate was good enough without punctuating it with a volley of photon torpedoes.

Instead they had to inject the cynicism - because heaven knows there's not enough of those kind of movies and TV shows already.... :tongue:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Far be it for me to defend JJTrek, but Kirk offers to assist Nero. Nero refuses with extreme prejudice. 

Militarily Kirk then MUST make sure Nero is stopped. Nero destroyed Vulcan and has said he will do the same to other worlds if he can. The Narada is the most powerful ship in federation space at that time. What if some how Nero survived? It's imperative that Nero is destroyed. Complete

As a side, it seems to me that Kirk is the only character that has any depth in the movie. McCoy comes close, but ultimately falls flat. Every other character is 2 dimensional. 

Trek, to me was about the interaction/relationship between Kirk and Spock/McCoy/Enterprise first. Then big ideas second. It's always been a
Human story, not a science fiction story. The great Sci-Fi was just a welcome bonus.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I found Spock more than 2-dimensional--he's a flawed character who has not reconciled his human and Vulcan side and is carrying on an affair with a fellow officer. He experiences the death of his mother and much of his race and struggles to maintain control of his emotions under those horrific circumstances. I'm very interested in seeing how that character evolves in the next movie.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Far be it for me to defend JJTrek, but Kirk offers to assist Nero. Nero refuses with extreme prejudice.
> 
> Militarily Kirk then MUST make sure Nero is stopped. Nero destroyed Vulcan and has said he will do the same to other worlds if he can. The Narada is the most powerful ship in federation space at that time. What if some how Nero survived? It's imperative that Nero is destroyed. Complete


Ok - that's plausible. I guess... Even with the Narada's hull compromised by Spock crashing his ship into it, and with the Narada being sucked into a black hole whose power previously crushed an entire planet (Vulcan) - let alone what would be a comparatively tiny and damaged spaceship - I can let that one slide. 

"I'll buy that fer a dollar!" (RoboCop). 

One thing I SINCERELY hope JJA doesn't do is turn this next villain into some kind of Emperor or something, who attacks Earth and the Federation - turning them into a rag-tag group of rebels who then have to fly against the Death Star.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> I know some people think Star Trek is quaint with it's rose-colored glasses view of the future, but consider this:
> 
> Many a current NASA technician/astronaut were inspired to enter their field by watching Star Trek. This is the outcome that a "simple" television series had.
> 
> ...


Bottom line: The original Star Trek inspired a generation to reach for the stars and make the world a better place.

What the hell will JJTrek inspire anyone to do? Chase green chicks?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Captain April said:


> What the hell will JJTrek inspire anyone to do? Chase green chicks?


I'm motivated. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Okay, nailing green chicks _is_ a somewhat laudable goal, but it's not gonna do much to advance the space program.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> ...Maybe they made the 1st one fugly on purpose because they knew they would update it later and had to have someplace to take the design forward.


I don't think they were thinking that far ahead when they were making the 2009 movie. If anything, I think they included the JJPrise's destruction in the upcoming movie (if it does in fact happen) because of all the negative backlash over the design--it gives them an opportunity to try again to come up with something that would appease we long-time fans of the original series.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

C'mon now, guys already chase chicks. Now some of the chicks might just paint themselves green. Of course some doofus might get it into his head to trash classic cars.

Actually that one scene is quite representative of the entire film: driving a classic off a cliff and thoroughly trashing it.


Seriously them trashing the JJprise at this point would prove how little they think of their own creation and how little conviction they have. It would also show how little regard they have for the material.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No, I think your post on the "Da JJ-prise is acomin'" thread has brought up another possibility:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Yellow Submarinerprise!"



Aw crap, now I feel compelled to build a model of that! :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That would have been undeniable proof JJ and gang were stoned stupid during development and production of ST09. :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Far be it for me to defend JJTrek, but Kirk offers to assist Nero. Nero refuses with extreme prejudice.
> 
> Militarily Kirk then MUST make sure Nero is stopped. Nero destroyed Vulcan and has said he will do the same to other worlds if he can. The Narada is the most powerful ship in federation space at that time. What if some how Nero survived? It's imperative that Nero is destroyed. Complete
> 
> ...


That's what I got out of it. Either Kirk had to have him in custody, or killed.

No allowing for James Bond type escape nonsense in even the JJAbrams Trek universe.

The funniest part of the Austin Powers movies to me was when the villian wanted to throw Austin Powers into a tank filled with laser-armed sharks
and the son basically said:

"Hey! I got a gun right now. What's up with this stupid Laser/Shark nonsense? Just let me cap him! Two seconds and it's done! Why give'em a chance to escape?"


And while the idea that Spock would want a bit of revenge is not that out of place to me, he even eluded to that fact that since he was half human Earth was the
only home he had left now that Vulcan was destroyed . . .

It makes total sense from a logical standpoint that the Romulans from the future not even be allowed to boad the Enterprise.

Even as Federation prisoners they would have enough general knowledge of the future - even if it was a now altered one - to perhaps cause some tremendous 
calamities even if held in custody. 

An unscrupulous federation official getting to interogate them could cause some serious damage.

So Spock's response, even if tinged with a desire for revenge, was a logical decision as well.




Makes a lot more sense then Princess Lea consoling Luke on the Milenium Falcon after Obi-Wan was killed,
as I think Robot Chicken (might have been something else on Adult Swim but I think it was Robot Chicken -
destroyer of all fondly held childhood memories!) pointed out.

"Ah. You are so broken up about Ben, who you knew for what, two days?

I knew him all my life and just had my home planet filled with billions of people on it blown up.

But let me sit here and console you . . ."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Aw crap, now I feel compelled to build a model of that! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

John P said:


> Aw crap, now I feel compelled to build a model of that! :lol:


I know you can find the yellow paint at your local hobby shop,

but be careful where you buy the necessary Mary J for the build!!!!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I forget, how big was that Yellow Submarine model that came out (AMT?)


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Captain April said:


> I forget, how big was that Yellow Submarine model that came out (AMT?)


Around 10 inches IIRC, it has been about 12 years since I dug mine out of storage.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is old but it was pretty much spot on:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Interesting:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/13/gabriel-koerners-weighs-in-on-new-uss-enterprise/


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gabe's not nearly as charitable these days.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Gabe's not nearly as charitable these days.


What happened to him? I haven't seen him around the web lately.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trying to find work and get laid on a semi-regular basis, just like the rest of us. Last word was that he did manage to land a gig on a production, I forget what.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

It occurred to me after reading the remark that it was the "relationships" that was what was most interesting in Star Trek - that may be the closest JJA has come in his movie.

Not quite, but more so than a lot of the successors to TOS.

For all the fun made of Shatner's acting, it really was his range that brought the character interactions to life on the show. Watching "The Cage" with Jeffery Hunter, you can see the contrast. Hunter is stiff by comparison, playing "the tortured commander with the weight of the universe on his shoulders" role.

Shatner's opening remarks in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is a bit of levity with Spock, chiding him for his chess mannerisms. He could have played it in a serious manner instead, but keeping it light helped establish their relationship. His acting range was broader even in that one episode, and allowed later episodes to stray into the comedic successfully. 

Looking back on "Enterprise", although Bakula is a fine actor, he reflects Hunter's portrayal of a Captain more than Shatner's. The character interaction never seemed as compelling (to me) as TOS. In some respects, that holds for the other post-TOS Trek as well.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Good points. Just another reason Kirk rules.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Good points. Just another reason Kirk rules.


A good example is in "Mirror, Mirror" when Kirk's evil self is being dragged to the brig.

Shatner manages to portray fury, bewilderment, sly/wry humor, and conniving schemer all in one scene, and pretty effectively. I can't think of another scene in a post-TOS episode (that I have seen - haven't seen them all by a long shot), where an actor playing a role cycled through so many emotions in so short a period.\

(Of course, it wasn't shot in a single take - but his acting range for that scene was fairly broad).


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Shatner is fantastic. He's probably best in "The Corbomite Maneuver," where he really seems to get comfortable in the Kirk role and has some awesome moments. I love his explosive fight with McCoy on the bridge--also the scene in his quarters with McCoy where Bones asks him what he's going to do with that extra 6% efficiency from the crew and Kirk suggestively holds up a piece of salad and says, "I'm going to take it...and I'm going to..." Pretty adult stuff, especially for the time.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think too that Shatner was the toughest person to recast and maybe a key reason why they went with such a different interpretation of Kirk. It's tough to reproduce the role of Kirk as he was without it becoming a parody. Shatner's style was totally distinctive and obviously lent itself to imitation and parody. McCoy and Spock in a way are a little more sharply defined, from McCoy's accent and aphorisms to Spock's distinct way of speaking--I think they were easier to reproduce, although still challenging.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I will never forget so many people saying Shatner's best performance was in TWoK. Sorry, but no damned way. Shatner's often excelled in TOS.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Hey, I _like_ the ship now.









Hope to see less of it real soon.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

So the ship might get trashed and if so then nuStarfleet builds another with the same name? The same name of a ship that has next to no real service life? Goes right along with giving a Captaincy to a cadet because he gets lucky once.

Whoever is writing this garbage has zero sense of credibility.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Warped9 said:


> The same name of a ship that has next to no real service life?


As far as I know the story of the upcoming movie we have to deal with a little time leap - I read somewhere that several years of service (2, IIRC) have past since the 2009 movie.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

significant edit required repost on next page in message #304.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Hey, I _like_ the ship now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I especially like how the name Enterprise has been burned off it by phaser fire. It's like even ole' JJ knows that it isn't worthy of bearing the name Enterprise.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Hope the villain isn't Khan - because the guy doesn't look anything like him.

If not Khan, who?

Gary Mitchell?

A grown-up Charlie X?

Emperor Palpatine in his younger days?


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Well we all know who the real villian behind the scenes is-JJ ABRAMS!!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Marco Scheloske said:


> As far as I know the story of the upcoming movie we have to deal with a little time leap - I read somewhere that several years of service (2, IIRC) have past since the 2009 movie.


That would make sense. We're all four years older (or will be when the movie is released), and the actors are four years older, so the characters should be too.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

:drunk: 

I know I'm :beatdeadhorse: but every time I look at the JJ-prise, _really _examine it, it looks more and more bizarre to me.

Reminds me of overdone modern architecture:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :drunk:
> 
> I know I'm :beatdeadhorse: but every time I look at the JJ-prise, _really _examine it, it looks more and more bizarre to me.
> 
> Reminds me of overdone modern architecture:


While I'm mostly reading this thread for entertainment value, I'll have to admit that building seems to be _smirking_. Makes me think that if you wanted a building that would embody the stereotype of a seedy, insincere used-car salesman, that's the one.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> While I'm mostly reading this thread for entertainment value, I'll have to admit that building seems to be _smirking_. Makes me think that if you wanted a building that would embody the stereotype of a seedy, insincere used-car salesman, that's the one.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


If somebody gave me a house like that I'd take it.

Though in hurricane or windstorm territory it wouldn't last a season.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> So the ship might get trashed and if so then nuStarfleet builds another with the same name? The same name of a ship that has next to no real service life? Goes right along with giving a Captaincy to a cadet because he gets lucky once.
> 
> Whoever is writing this garbage has zero sense of credibility.


Agreed.

Even if Marco is recalling two years of service correctly, that is not a real service life.

The only way one might explain it away is that the Enterprise is an homage to the NX-01.

Melting steel from something considered revered has become a practice in Naval shipbuilding.

A recent example was using some of the steel from the Twin Towers to build a supply ship.

Perhaps since she might have been named after the NX-01 whose captain helped bring the
Federation together, and also because of any deeds performed within the upcoming movie,

they might melt down or reuse what's left of her. Thereby avoiding a need to use an A,
as what was done with the refit in TMP - which may or may not have been the first refit.


Not sure if that logic holds a lot of water, but it's the only thing I can come up with.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If somebody gave me a house like that I'd take it.
> 
> Though in hurricane or windstorm territory it wouldn't last a season.


Oh yes -- it is very cool in a retro, mid-'50s Disneyland "Monsanto House of the Future" way. Even if it _is_ talking about you behind your back!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I empathize with the fact that:

1) They were expected to adhere in some manner to established canon.
2) The guy working on it had to justify a paycheck. After all, if he stuck to the original design, his boss would say "WTF? This is already done. I'm paying you for this?!!" 

But, to me, the guy couldn't come up with anything good...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> I empathize with the fact that:
> 
> 1) They were expected to adhere in some manner to established canon.
> 2) The guy working on it had to justify a paycheck. After all, if he stuck to the original design, his boss would say "WTF? This is already done. I'm paying you for this?!!"
> ...


It screams tricked out Muscle Car to me.
The nacelles look like old bullet style headlights.

Put'em all together and I half expected to see fuzzy dice hanging from the helm and the Enterprise to bounce up and down like a low-rider before going to warp.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :drunk:
> 
> I know I'm :beatdeadhorse: but every time I look at the JJ-prise, _really _examine it, it looks more and more bizarre to me.
> 
> Reminds me of overdone modern architecture:


Ah, the "Sleeper" house. Gone by it on the highway many a time over the years. Every time someone else buys it, it makes the local news.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

If they do trash the JJ-prise, I hope they redo the insides and get rid of the iBridge look.

It looks more like it was designed for a group Wii session.:tongue:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

^ Well, it _is_ a young crew...


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

J_Indy said:


> If they do trash the JJ-prise, I hope they redo the insides and get rid of the iBridge look.
> 
> It looks more like it was designed for a group Wii session.:tongue:


Definitely get rid of the "lens flare" generators.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

kenlee said:


> Definitely get rid of the "lens flare" generators.


I agree but I've got to admit that lens flares are not make or break for me. _BSG: Blood & Chrome_ has plenty of it and I still like the production a lot. Not sure if they did that to disguise the cheapness of the production done mostly with green screen but there's plenty of it there. I still don't like it stylistically but there's plenty more to dislike about _ST:2009._


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

There are more lens flares in the first 10 minutes of Blood and Chrome than in the entirety of Trek 2009...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You only say that 'cause it's true....


----------



## DarthSideous (Mar 26, 2008)

Hated the movie and hate the ship! Thanks for posting this thread!


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

DarthSideous said:


> Hated the movie and hate the ship! Thanks for posting this thread!


Lol brief and to the point! Join the club, friend!


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

I think JJ hates most of the fans like us so i believe he won't miss the chance to give everyone one who hates the NU plasticprise the finger. Somehow the crew will save that hunk of junk at the last minute. That is his MO after all.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I thought he was destroying the Enterprise in the new movie...?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> I thought he was destroying the Enterprise in the new movie...?


Many of us are fervently praying so!


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Many of us are fervently praying so!


:lol::jest::lol::jest::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

[Baltar]

*Burn, Enterprise! BURN!*

[/Baltar]


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> [Baltar]
> 
> *Burn, Enterprise! BURN!*
> 
> [/Baltar]


You need to be hardcore to get that in a flash; fortunately I am.:tongue:


----------



## sunburn800 (Nov 24, 2006)

(Cylon)But sir what about the other enterprise?


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

I have already posted my disdain for the JJPrise,Ryan Church really did
a rotten job in the way he over redesigned the Enterprise.He should have
stayed with designing the Star Wars Universe.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

WOI said:


> I have already posted my disdain for the JJPrise,Ryan Church really did
> a rotten job in the way he over redesigned the Enterprise.He should have
> stayed with designing the Star Wars Universe.



It has no sense of grace or proportion to it at all.

But then, he had to do something to justify a paycheck...


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> It has no sense of grace or proportion to it at all.


I've seen worse, but the JJPrise could be SO much better with minor tweaks....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Okay, so as to avoid even the appearance of "hate"  on the other thread concerning the model, I'll post this question here utilizing the appropriate "hateful" terminology:

So, the "brokeback mounting" of the saucer and the nacelles, where the back of the nacelles and the front of the saucer are lifted up some out of alignment is on purpose and is part of the CGI model???? Kenlee, who has a very sharp eye, noted the observation on this page: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=383638&page=4

I thought it was an optical illusion or something from the strange taper of the nacelles and the goofball lack of balance in the proportions of the brewery (secondary) hull. But apparently it's been designed to look like it's always on the verge of folding up as this pic of the model kit seems to indicate:










The side view is telling as well:










If that's the case, then all I can say is "UGH!" It's the most vomit-inducing, IMHO, of all the features of the nu1701.

It may be hard to build it the "correct" way out of alignment and win at model contests where one of the first things they look for is symmetry and alignment of the kit parts. Only if they're very familiar with the subject matter will they be able to judge the model fairly.


----------



## Moderbuilderzero (Mar 29, 2013)

Now EITHER one of these would have made a GREAT reimagined Enterprise, compared to the JJunkPrise!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If we _have_ to update the old girl:
- keep it close to TMP scale (friggin' shuttle bay!)
- keep the primary hull
- keep the neck
- keep the secondary hull, but shove it back, shorten it a bit and add back a bit on the ventral stern 
- sure, keep the pylons
- nacelles: lose the top caps (they draw the eye too much!) and tone down the tail fins and pylon joint fairings.
- do a walk-around and tone down anything else that stands out (must have unity!)

There. The USS _Compromise_!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> If we _have_ to update the old girl:
> - keep it close to TMP scale (friggin' shuttle bay!)
> - keep the primary hull
> - keep the neck
> ...


Can't wait to see how short a leash Abrams is kept on when dealing with the _Star Wars_ franchise. He may learn a little humility with that one.:wave:


----------



## Moderbuilderzero (Mar 29, 2013)

Here ya go.......enjoy the video.

MBZ.


----------



## Moderbuilderzero (Mar 29, 2013)

Another. LOVE the nacelles on this ship!


----------



## Ensign Eddie (Nov 25, 1998)

Not really a fan of the KoernerPrise (too many hard angles for my taste). But at least all the parts seem to go together proportionately.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone sits down and thinks they need to redesign the Enterprise. They got it right twice (TOS and TMP). Anything more is just pushing your luck.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Yeah, although the Koernerprise has better unity of proportions, the sec hull is a bit too thick (making it look as if it has a bit of a gut), and there's too much surface relief going on, almost as if the ship were influenced by the Star Wars greebly universe ... or at least by the Enterprise-E. 

Smoother, please. (picky, picky, picky)


----------



## Moderbuilderzero (Mar 29, 2013)

Steve, I see your points on the Koerner ship, and agree to some degree, but at least it's closer to the refit design than the JJprise. The Engineering section reminds me a bit of the shapes and angles used on Excelsior, so to me, it sort of ties those lines together.

The saucer is very reminiscent of the classic design, and those engines and glowing tops update the old girl well. Kinda reminds me of the lighting some people are doing to their 1:350 scale TOS kits out now. I know there is a bulge above the bussards, but nowhere near those on the JJprise. Those things look like flying boobs! ( Kinda like _NELL_, in Battle Beyond The Stars).

I do agree, they got the design right on other occasions, and why mess with perfection? Thats why I like that 1st video I posted, with the K-prise and Refit together. The old and new blending. We can only hope future designs harken back to the original ships' lineage and design. We love the ship, and will probably build the old girl, in any shape they dream up. :wave:

Sincerely,
MBZ.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

Im still upset that the original Enterprise is out of commission and my opinion is most of the movies sucked and I only liked the next generation and I watch the original tv series for a good laugh.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

Can someone do a photo-chop of the Enterprise with the Deathstar as the saucer????? Or maybe the Borg cube?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Can't wait to see how short a leash Abrams is kept on when dealing with the _Star Wars_ franchise. He may learn a little humility with that one.:wave:


The Millenium Falcon will have hubcaps...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> The Millenium Falcon will have hubcaps...


Good gosh! If he is allowed by TPTB to mess around with the MF and do something goofy to that design, all hell will break loose. It would be entertaining to see all those folks react who didn't really care that much about Trek and who like the reboot stuff but who've been SW fans since they were kids. I kinda hope that happens because I'm a big believer in poetic justice. Then again, maybe poetic justice will be JJ Abrams with his hands tied when it comes to changing major things. 

It wasn't, as we know, just the designs and aesthetics that changed in ST. All sorts of established Trek history has totally changed. If he does to Star Wars what he did to Trek, even though he's doing "sequels," Luke will be married to Leia--_knowing _that they're siblings. Yoda will be still be alive and the character will look like nuScotty's alien dwarf buddy. The Millenium Falcon will be _smooth_ and have blue lights all over it--and be ten times as big as the original and so on. Has someone done a parody of this yet?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Personally I think JJA will stick close to the Star Wars icons because he admitted he was more of a SW guy than a ST guy. He's more likely to handle the material with a bit of reverence.

In my estimation, he tried to convert Star Trek over more to Star Wars, so he doesn't even have to bother with a conversion next time.

Star Wars was a fun adventure (at least movie 1 was imo), but it is always "Fight The Bad Guy" against huge odds.

Star Trek TOS would have some political or social commentary at times, though obscured enough to avoid the network censors.

In a way, the bad/expensive special effects of the TOS era made them work at telling good stories. Now, all that I remember of a lot of the Star Wars sequels was some special effects explosions. :drunk:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

JJ did it his way and blew it. By the way, where is the pennant? It's not on the new ship anywhere.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

1966TVBATMOBILE said:


> Im still upset that the original Enterprise is out of commission and my opinion is most of the movies sucked and I only liked the next generation and I watch the original tv series for a good laugh.


Original series for a laugh? Movies sucked? Liked TNG? You're either a troll or a troll, troll.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> Original series for a laugh? Movies sucked? Liked TNG? You're either a troll or a troll, troll.


Not necessarily. He may be a huge Next Gen fan and maybe the 1701D is the "original" Enterprise for him. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the post.  

Still, if he likes the 1966 Batmobile, he's all right in my book whether he likes my Trek or not. :thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Antimatter said:


> JJ did it his way and blew it.


Not sure he blew it, since it made money.

But it doesn't really have the "soul" of Star Trek, so it is more in name only.

Maybe he could rename it "Space Adventure".


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Maybe he could rename it "Space Adventure".


I like your idea!! :thumbsup:


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

Thank you-->


PerfesserCoffee said:


> Not necessarily. He may be a huge Next Gen fan and maybe the 1701D is the "original" Enterprise for him. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the post.
> 
> Still, if he likes the 1966 Batmobile, he's all right in my book whether he likes my Trek or not. :thumbsup:


Sorry about the Obfuscation


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

Antimatter said:


> Original series for a laugh? Movies sucked? Liked TNG? You're either a troll or a troll, troll.


The part where I say "Im still upset that the original Enterprise is out of commission" USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) was a joke. The movies are 50/50 for me. Yes I like G rod and yes TOS gives me a few laughs. Look at those aliens and costumes. LoL. You`ll probably hate me for mentioning Kirk`s Shakespearean like vernacular. 

I have the new Hot Wheels 1:64 Uss Enterprise and I love it. Ha Ha. I also collect Die Cast E.T and Star Wars stuff. Now what?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I like your idea!! :thumbsup:


Thanks! 

Or maybe to give it more gravitas:

"J.J. Abrams' - Space Adventure"


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The Millenium Falcon will be _smooth_ and have blue lights all over it--and be ten times as big as the original and so on. Has someone done a parody of this yet?


And the cockpit will telescope up to 10 times it's original length prompting off color jokes from Jabba the Hut but making it very popular with the ladies.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> But it doesn't really have the "soul" of Star Trek, so it is more in name only.


STINO?

'ino' could be tagged to SO many things these days....:freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

1966TVBATMOBILE said:


> The part where I say "Im still upset that the original Enterprise is out of commission" USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) was a joke. The movies are 50/50 for me. Yes I like G rod and yes TOS gives me a few laughs. Look at those aliens and costumes. LoL. You`ll probably hate me for mentioning Kirk`s Shakespearean like vernacular.
> 
> I have the new Hot Wheels 1:64 Uss Enterprise and I love it. Ha Ha. I also collect Die Cast E.T and Star Wars stuff. Now what?


Okay, gotcha! That's cool! Gotta have some fun with it. See! I knew you weren't a troll! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> And the cockpit will telescope up to 10 times it's original length prompting off color jokes from Jabba the Hut but making it very popular with the ladies.


It might make it more popular with Jabba--he's kind of large and soft himself. Then again, he likes human women in chains, doesn't he?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> STINO?
> 
> 'ino' could be tagged to SO many things these days....:freak:


Ha! Good one! And you're right.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Okay, gotcha! That's cool! Gotta have some fun with it. See! I knew you weren't a troll! :thumbsup:


Treasure troll? Because if so that would have really hurt.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

1966TVBATMOBILE said:


> Treasure troll? Because if so that would have really hurt.


Nah, you can be a treasure troll if you want to. Join the club!










You really are stuck in the late sixties, eh? I can barely remember those dolls. My cousins had them or I might not have ever been exposed to them. (Or they to me!)


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I still have one LOL!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

1966TVBATMOBILE said:


> ...I have the new Hot Wheels 1:64 Uss Enterprise...


I want one!


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

LoL you guys are hilarious. Seriously it made me laugh. Who knew that we would end up talking about treasure trolls on the "I hate JJ Prise" LoL again. 

The HW`s version of the new Enterprise comes in Hot Wheels H Case. It also comes with a stand. Its not highly detailed but I can fix that.

Here it is.----> http://img1.mlstatic.com/hot-wheels-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-2013-060_MLB-O-4219890697_042013.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

1966TVBATMOBILE said:


> Here it is.----> http://img1.mlstatic.com/hot-wheels-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-2013-060_MLB-O-4219890697_042013.jpg


HATE IIIIIT! 

If possible, it looks even uglier in a smaller scale:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> If possible, it looks even uglier in a smaller scale:


I blame Hot Wheels.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I blame JJ


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

I blame Ryan Church* AND* Jar Jar Abrams. It would take more than one knucklehead to design a ship so goofy looking, stand back, and say 'It Looks Great!' I remember when the ship was unveiled on trekmovie.com just before the first film came out, my heart sank. Let's pray he leaves the Millennium Falcon alone... 

Or am I hoping for too much?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

This is how I imagine the creative session went....


JJA: What are we gonna do about the ship? We have to make it look kinda different becuz, you know, it's gonna be my Star Trek.
RC: Well, we need to have a saucer, because all those ships have a saucer, right?
JJA: Well, yeah. Even in that movie where the old hippie guy hijacks another starship - that one had a saucer, right?
RC: Yeah. I think so. Didn't see the movie.
JJA: What about the cigar-shaped thing underneath?
RC: I can chop off part of it. That'll look different.
JJA: That's good! How about the engines?
RC (snickering): They kind of look like when Trekkies get all excited, don't they?
JJA (laughing): Yeah - must be why they like it so much! But....that's the guy Trekkies - what about when the girl ones get excited?
RC: Hey - you know - that gives me an idea....


And so, the JJ-prise was born.....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> This is how I imagine the creative session went....
> 
> 
> JJA: What are we gonna do about the ship? We have to make it look kinda different becuz, you know, it's gonna be my Star Trek.
> ...


 Sounds like you were a fly on the wall during that session.

Go back and read it in an urban gangster style and it sounds even funnier.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> HATE IIIIIT!
> 
> If possible, it looks even uglier in a smaller scale:


It only cost me $1 and about a weeks worth of gas and time just to hunt it down. LoL. The guys on the Hot Wheels Forum would be mad to know I grabbed 4. I just had to. :freak:


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

I still would like to see a photo-chop of the JJ-Prise with the death star or Borg Cube as the saucer. That would make my day.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

As I understand it, Abrams will be making a sequel, not a reboot...so the design of the Falcon (if shown at all) shouldn't change.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

If this is for real,  I suppose there's no point in my bothering to come up with a jest regarding it:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Reminds me of that ad in Robocop, "Bigger is better!!"


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

That poster does not represent an accurate scale between the Enterprise and the Vengeance. In the movie, the ships are closer together in size. I imagine it was just done for marketing purposes of that poster.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> That poster does not represent an accurate scale between the Enterprise and the Vengeance. In the movie, the ships are closer together in size. I imagine it was just done for marketing purposes of that poster.


Probably so but, considering the scale controversies on the nu1701, it's still very funny! The Vengeance would have to be near Death Star proportions if the relative sizes were the same as in the poster _and _the nu1701 is the biggest of the sizes proposed so far.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

My god that is one butt ugly ship. Not so much hit with the ugly ship as crashed through the whole forest!

Rob


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's all ugly as hell.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The cut-out in the middle of the saucer of the _Vengeance_ reminds me of something. Hmm . . .


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JJ has doubled down: the engineering section is an even BIGGER brewery this time around:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Sux 9000


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

LOL!! 

Wow - they've gone from Jefferies' original, elegant design to somebody designing with Legos.....


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Wow - they've gone from Jefferies' original, elegant design to somebody designing with Legos.....


Don't make fun of Legos, man, they're COOL!

:tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

You're allowed to make fun of this mess:

http://io9.com/i-think-it-would-be-useful-if-actors-actually-used-thes-476222926










Why am I picturing Christopher Walken saying the bridge needs more cowbell? Or maybe he should say it needs more barcode scanners.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

For a very long time there has never been any real lack of talent and ability in fashioning eye candy for film or television. The distinction (for me) comes down to direction: what are you shooting for and how is it executed. Just as the TOS _Enterprise_ ideally reflected the show it was featured in so does the JJprise. The TOS _E_ was a reflection of people trying to think things through with some measure of credibility and some sense of realism within the wow factor. Everything in JJtrek (well represented by the JJprise) seems based on arbitrariness. Ask why something is like this or like that it seems the most likely answer is, "I dunno, just because."

It's also quite possible that everything in JJtrek is _meant_ to be contradictory to the original source materiel. The MJ _Enterprise_ was an inspired bit of design and creativity. In contrast it seems the RC design is deliberately ungainly and disturbingly ill-proportioned.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> For a very long time there has never been any real lack of talent and ability in fashioning eye candy for film or television. The distinction (for me) comes down to direction: what are you shooting for and how is it executed. Just as the TOS _Enterprise_ ideally reflected the show it was featured in so does the JJprise. The TOS _E_ was a reflection of people trying to think things through with some measure of credibility and some sense of realism within the wow factor. Everything in JJtrek (well represented by the JJprise) seems based on arbitrariness. Ask why something is like this or like that it seems the most likely answer is, "I dunno, just because."
> 
> It's also quite possible that everything in JJtrek is _meant_ to be contradictory to the original source materiel. The MJ _Enterprise_ was an inspired bit of design and creativity. In contrast it seems the RC design is deliberately ungainly and disturbingly ill-proportioned.


I agree. Everything I've seen in JJ's art direction seems to scream--in a very shrill voice, "IN YOUR FACE!"


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You're allowed to make fun of this mess:
> 
> http://io9.com/i-think-it-would-be-useful-if-actors-actually-used-thes-476222926
> 
> ...


Three things that come to my mind when I see that picture:

- why does every work station have its own pair of desk lamps if the bridge is extremely well lit itself?

- why does every work station have a little joystick thingy if there is no screen to steer something just tiny displays if any? 

- what are those round segmented things that every station has multiple times? 

The only thing that seemed to have any kind of real function was Sulus "punch it" throttle control.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You're allowed to make fun of this mess:
> 
> http://io9.com/i-think-it-would-be-useful-if-actors-actually-used-thes-476222926
> 
> ...


Why are there multiple flood/spot lights directed right in you face at the outer control consoles? Not downward and indirect but in your face. Glare, glare, glare. That bridge is insanely lit.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Why you ask? Why?.....

Because.....

It's the JJ Fugly-prise! 

As fugly on the inside as it is fugly on the outside.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Why.

I dunno, just because.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I think the JJprise bridge could look awesome with some tweaks. I like the computer interface screens. Just rip out all the stuff that makes the bridge too cluttered. Starfleet bridges are supposed to be clean and slick. Get rid of the glass stand-ups, the standing panel stations with the barcode scanners on it, get some dark gray/red paint on the walls to give the bridge some color variety. Yeah, it could look great if handled right, but unfortunately it's not.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> ...Everything in JJtrek (well represented by the JJprise) seems based on arbitrariness. Ask why something is like this or like that it seems the most likely answer is, "I dunno, just because."


Or, "Because it _looks_ cool!"



Garbaron said:


> - what are those round segmented things that every station has multiple times?


Cup holders?


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Matt Jefferies (a TRUE designer of starships) apparently saw the refit bridge and thought they had turned his bridge into "the lobby of the Hilton". And that bridge was a utilitarian paradise compared to this one. Bet he would just "love" JJ Prise bridge were he alive today.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Sparky said:


> Why are there multiple flood/spot lights directed right in you face at the outer control consoles? Not downward and indirect but in your face. Glare, glare, glare. That bridge is insanely lit.


*"There are four lights!"*


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Sparky said:


> Why are there multiple flood/spot lights directed right in you face at the outer control consoles? Not downward and indirect but in your face. Glare, glare, glare. That bridge is insanely lit.


The extra lights are there in case you miss seeing THE LENS FLARES!!! 

Because, you know, we need more LENS FLARES!!!

(JJA's poetic metaphor for "Cow-Bell")


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Keep your comments limited to the ship itself.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I think the JJprise bridge could look awesome with some tweaks. I like the computer interface screens. Just rip out all the stuff that makes the bridge too cluttered. Starfleet bridges are supposed to be clean and slick. Get rid of the glass stand-ups, the standing panel stations with the barcode scanners on it, get some dark gray/red paint on the walls to give the bridge some color variety. Yeah, it could look great if handled right, but unfortunately it's not.


Way too much clutter, I agree. An average person walking through the bridge would have to be careful to not catch a sleeve on those light bars(?). Interfaces, in general, are becoming are less manual and one would expect even more so in the future.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Way too much clutter, I agree. An average person walking through the bridge would have to be careful to not catch a sleeve on those light bars(?). Interfaces, in general, are becoming are less manual and one would expect even more so in the future.



What about the contrast in design between the bridge, slick white hallways, etc,

and the engine room?

It seems like a completely different esthetic there.

One looks like it was bought online at the Applestore, the other looks Steampunk!


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Slick/artsy looking controls, rooms, ships, ect. is not inherently bad. For some types of sci fi / fantasy movies its right at home. An quick example that comes to mind is the 1980 Flash Gordon movie. Bright, garish, and over-the-top design in just about everthing and it is one of my favorite movies. None of the harware looks realistic/functional and I don't really mind a bit. 

But in Star Trek movies, the believability of the hardware is far more important. The current movie design just doesn't allow me to get into a frame of mind where I buy in that the ship and controls could be real. More art than engineering.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sparky said:


> Slick/artsy looking controls, rooms, ships, ect. is not inherently bad. For some types of sci fi / fantasy movies its right at home. An quick example that comes to mind is the 1980 Flash Gordon movie. Bright, garish, and over-the-top design in just about everthing and it is one of my favorite movies. None of the harware looks realistic/functional and I don't really mind a bit.
> 
> But in Star Trek movies, the believability of the hardware is far more important. The current movie design just doesn't allow me to get into a frame of mind where I buy in that the ship and controls could be real. More art than engineering.


I would even buy into the more artsy-farsty iTrek asthetic if it were consistent.

But the ship's internal design seems to be all over the place.

The engineering section looks just like what it is. A big room with huge plumbing that has some interfaces slapped on here and there.

I like the shuttlebay. Even though it blows the heck out of the scale of
the ship that doesn't bother me.

It's the most believable part of the ship, but doesn't really match the bridge
or engineering sections.

The three just don't work well together.

I think the Kelvin's design was better thought out, the different elements didn't clash with one another.
The bridge was especially a much cleaner and straightforward design.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I would even buy into the more artsy-farsty iTrek asthetic if it were consistent.
> 
> But the ship's internal design seems to be all over the place.
> 
> ...


I have thought the same on the Kelvin. Its really not too bad.

The best way I know how to put it is that this latest series of Trek movies really needs an Andrew Probert type designer. The refit showed how it should be done. I have always appreciate the grand oceanliner-like appearance but also well thought out functional attributes like thrusters, docking ports, floods, botanical area, ect. It seemed like a real ship (a really cool looking one at that :thumbsup.

IMHO, the TOS and refits designs are still the high water marks.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I always like the TOS Ward Engines best (with the NX a close second) they should look like big generators hanging outboard, something that is a real machine doing important things. The only problem I had wit eh Refit was that the redesigned engines looked to sculptural, like art deco refrigerators. 
The Nu-E engines are the worst I have seen- they also violate one of the big design instructions Gene R had. He wanted the engines to have no exhaust/thruster ends. The ship was supposed to be so far advanced they would never have flames or exhaust shooting out from behind. The only exception to this until now was the Vulcan Shuttle Warpsled and that was because the two nacelles had impulse engines built into them.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I like the shuttlebay. Even though it blows the heck out of the scale of the ship that doesn't bother me.
> 
> It's the most believable part of the ship, but doesn't really match the bridge
> or engineering sections.
> ...


Good observations. :thumbsup:

I like the shuttlebay as well--just doesn't fit some of the stated scales of the ship. I do NOT like the shuttlebay doors however. What is with the cutout in the clamshell segments? Talk about unnecessary and anything but utilitarian. 

The Kelvin exterior could almost work as a pre-TOS design in the real Trek universe.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> The Nu-E engines are the worst I have seen- they also violate one of the big design instructions Gene R had. He wanted the engines to have no exhaust/thruster ends. The ship was supposed to be so far advanced they would never have flames or exhaust shooting out from behind. The only exception to this until now was the Vulcan Shuttle Warpsled and that was because the two nacelles had impulse engines built into them.


I just recalled that ST: The Undiscovered Country supported this. Spock said that ships at impulse emit ionized gas which suggested ships at warp do not.

It would then appear that the Nu-E is violating the "No Warp Tail Pipe" rule in the Trek universe.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

For crying out loud, it's just a sci-fi movie! It's just a MOVIE!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> For crying out loud, it's just a sci-fi movie! It's just a MOVIE!


This isn't the Sci-Fi Movie and TV discussion forum.

The best response I can give you for the comment above is . . .



Griffworks said:


> Keep your comments limited to the ship itself.


If you want to discuss it as a movie, this really isn't the place to do so.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> This isn't the Sci-Fi Movie and TV discussion forum.
> 
> The best response I can give you for the comment above is . . .
> 
> ...



Excuse me. What I meant to say is, for crying out loud, it's just a SHIP!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Excuse me. What I meant to say is, for crying out loud, it's just a SHIP!


100% true. But the modeling forum is all about ship design, after all.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

The funny thing is stuff like this has been dealt with before.

When they filmed "Enterprise In A Mirror Darkly" they at first were concerned that the NX bridge looked more sophisticated and were afraid "a bridge built in 1965 would look cheesy compared to one designed in 2005".






(about 5:00 in)

BUT - the professionals actually felt the sleek design of the TOS bridge still looked "futuristic".

In a word - "Timeless". 

The originality of the original designs contrast with the derivative unoriginal stuff seen lately.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> 100% true. But the modeling forum is all about ship design, after all.


True. One is entitled to hate any ship design. Personally, when I use the word "hate" with such vehemency I prefer to assign it to items like mass-murdering Nazis and terrorists, not any Star Trek ship design. For example, I think the Ent D looks somewhat ridiculous, but I don't "hate" it with such passion. But whatever... enjoy... :dude:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Proper2 said:


> For crying out loud, it's just a sci-fi movie! It's just a MOVIE!


As was mentioned from the very beginning, this thread is for comments by folks who dislike the design of the "JJ-Prise". Please keep all other comments out of this thread.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> True. One is entitled to hate any ship design. Personally, when I use the word "hate" with such vehemency I prefer to assign it to items like mass-murdering Nazis and terrorists, not any Star Trek ship design. For example, I think the Ent D looks somewhat ridiculous, but I don't "hate" it with such passion. But whatever... enjoy... :dude:


It seems to me that "hate" might be the really wrong word here. Hate perhaps in a joking fashion. I am just disappointed in the design direction of the new movies. I'm glad Star Trek continues in some form, but the ship and the set design just seems over the top and rather bizzare. 

But sometimes things take a while to grow on you. I was lukewarm on the NX-01 design at first, but now really have come to like it.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Sparky said:


> It seems to me that "hate" might be the really wrong word here. Hate perhaps in a joking fashion. I am just disappointed in the design direction of the new movies. I'm glad Star Trek continues in some form, but the ship and the set design just seems over the top and rather bizzare.
> 
> But sometimes things take a while to grow on you. I was lukewarm on the NX-01 design at first, but now really have come to like it.


Apparently the NX was done by Doug Drexler (interviewed in the prev YouTube clip I posted) - but his original design was supposedly more retro to the TOS ship. But as Steve Neill said in one of his vids - "the studio signs the paycheck" - so he had to accommodate what they would approve.

His design had a small secondary hull I think, that was removed in the final approved design.

As for "hate" - yes that is a strong word, but "strongly dislike" sounds kinda wimpy... 

I think there is some channeling of the overall disappointment in nu-Trek thru the subject of the ship, because the ship is basically another familiar character (or at least representative of one).

Because the design of the TOS ship was unlike anything seen before the original show, it really was "original" in the true sense of the word.

Now - look the the "Vengeance" - it's just the JJ-prise on steroids. At least in TWOK they came up with the Reliant design, which is also pretty cool looking within the boundaries of the refit.

With all the $$$ and resources they have at their disposal now, I look at the "creativity/originality" they exhibit and think - "That? That is it??"


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> Star Trek Enterprise Season 4 - In a Mirror Darkly - YouTube
> 
> (about 5:00 in)
> 
> ...


Thanks Indy!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sparky said:


> It seems to me that "hate" might be the really wrong word here. Hate perhaps in a joking fashion. I am just disappointed in the design direction of the new movies. I'm glad Star Trek continues in some form, but the ship and the set design just seems over the top and rather bizzare.
> . . .


Exactly.

I've even said there are some elements - okay, only one so far -

like the hanger bay that I think were well done.

Jefferies was there in the original series and gave a flow and
consistency to all the different design elements.

There were people who were paid to keep everything as consistent
as possible in the later series and did so with varying degrees of 
success.

There is no more iconic Sci-Fi vessel then the Enterprise.

Yet one part looks really flashy and cluttered(the bridge),
one part looks like it's designed well(the hanger bay),
and another is literally a brewery that has some interfaces 
slapped on here and there! 

Perplexed at who was and is manning the design helm here would
be a better description.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm getting used to it, except for those bloody huge nacelles. If my eyes keep going to them and staying there, unity of design has not been properly served. 

Oh, well.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Well it looks like us TOS Trek fans dodged a huge merchandising bullet from JJ Abrams. I read the other day one of the key reasons ol' JJ decided to take over doing Star Wars was because the studio wouldn't give him merchandising control over Star Trek so he could eliminate classic Trek merchandise in favor of his JJTrek BS. What arrogance on his part to want to force fans to accept HIS version of Star Trek merchandise alone. Back in 09 the Playmates JJprise and other merchandise lingered unsold all summer long in stores and wound up in Big Lots and other discount clearance stores bargain bins by summer's end. It makes he shudder to think what horrors he intends to visit upon Star Wars when he takes over. By JJ's "logic" the movie is 30 odd years old now and the designs should be approached with a fresh eye instead of hanging on to a kitschy old ship from the 70's like the Millennium Falcon. JJ said something very similar about the TOS Enterprise back in 09. I highly doubt that Lucas and Disney will give JJ free reign over what Star Wars merchandise he will allow to be sold. It makes me want to run out and buy another Round 2 TOS 3 footer just to spite him.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> Well it looks like us TOS Trek fans dodged a huge merchandising bullet from JJ Abrams. I read the other day one of the key reasons ol' JJ decided to take over doing Star Wars was because the studio wouldn't give him merchandising control over Star Trek so he could eliminate classic Trek merchandise in favor of his JJTrek BS. What arrogance on his part to want to force fans to accept HIS version of Star Trek merchandise alone. Back in 09 the Playmates JJprise and other merchandise lingered unsold all summer long in stores and wound up in Big Lots and other discount clearance stores bargain bins by summer's end. It makes he shudder to think what horrors he intends to visit upon Star Wars when he takes over. By JJ's "logic" the movie is 30 odd years old now and the designs should be approached with a fresh eye instead of hanging on to a kitschy old ship from the 70's like the Millennium Falcon. JJ said something very similar about the TOS Enterprise back in 09. I highly doubt that Lucas and Disney will give JJ free reign over what Star Wars merchandise he will allow to be sold. It makes me want to run out and buy another Round 2 TOS 3 footer just to spite him.


I have a feeling the old TOS designs will be around for awhile.

Merhandising and control issues aside,

there are certain designs that are classic.

The TOS Enterprise being one of them.

In terms of SciFi ship design, about the only other ones that come close are the designs of the Millenia Falcon and both sides' fighters in the Star Wars universe.

The original H.G. Wells Nautilus might be another one, 
and both versions of the Seaview of course.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Don't forget the Jupiter 2


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> Don't forget the Jupiter 2


Yep!

Lots of people have fond memories of that one as well.

I wouldn't worry about stories like the one you read about too much.

Often those kinds of stories are handed down from website to website.

Sometimes they are straw-man plants designed to get long term fans
to over react and thereby look unreasonable.

There is a long history of disinformation being planted by not just fans
but by film companies themselves.

The alternate endings to the Wrath of Kahn famously leaked by Paramount 
being a good example.

I wouldn't give it a ton of credibility or worry about it if I were you unless you
saw Abrams say it himself.

The only people I can see even thinking up a scenario where a director tries to 
get hold of merchandising decisions in order to wipe out stuff would be fans,
or maybe a company that wants rile people up in order to quell the fears they
themselves planted.

I don't think Abrams would have any interest in doing that, in my opinion,
and I don't see Paramount discontinuing anything that makes money.

Plus even if they wanted to do so, I'm sure CBS would have something
to say about it - which further makes the story a bit suspect.

Now when it comes to Star Wars, Lucas seemed like the kind of guy to
want to do that with his own franchise.

But again, as a Star Wars fan I wouldn't worry about that either, as I
doubt Lucas would have ever sold it to Disney if Disney or one of their 
minions

- anyone other then Lucas himself -

could do such a major revisioning.

So I guess my long rambling diatribe 
boils down to 

thinking that we shouldn't worry about those kinds of stories.

There is so much stuff floating around about these kinds of 
issues that I wouldn't suggest getting too worked up.

There are too many people making money off of all of this
for them to allow anyone to make such iconic merchandise 
disappear.

Classic Trek, Star Wars and other designs and merchandise
are probably safe as long as there is money to be made off of them.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Just for laughs here is a link and the story itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/j-j-abrams-may-taken-star-wars-because-190541029.html

J.J. Abrams always says he's never been a Trekkie, but, according to a new report in The Wrap, it was Abrams' inability to fully control the Star Trek franchise—and wipe out merchandise connected with the original 1960s series—that may have been an impetus to switch franchises in favor of Star Wars. What's more, Abrams' lack of passion for the Trek source material—and his lasting desire to commercialize it—may say something about the movies he's made. he Wrap's Brent Lang reports that convoluted questions of who owns what when it comes to Star Trek meant that Abrams could not create the "multi-platform experience that spanned television, digital entertainment and comic books" that he had envisioned. That roadblock may have played a part in Abrams's move to helm the Star Wars reboot at Disney, where such a lucrative concept would be welcomed with open arms. You see, whereas Paramount owns the movie rights to Star Trek, CBS owns the rights to the television series (and any future shows in the works). That meant that CBS could and still did create merchandise based on the cast members of the original series. Since people were apparently getting William Shatner's Kirk confused with Chris Pine's Kirk, Bad Robot—Abrams' production company—asked CBS to stop making such products. CBS said no, so Bad Robot "scaled back its ambitions to have Star Trek's storylines play out with television shows, spin-off films and online components, something Abrams had been eager to accomplish." Surely, Star Trek Into Darkness will make a lot of money , and, according to The Wrap, it appears that all parties worked "more harmoniously" on the sequel, but, alas, Abrams' grand plans for Star Trek could not be, and he's already hard at work on re-imaging Star Wars Episode VII for release in 2015. Disney certainly has major new hopes for franchising opportunities: We already know that the company will try to milk Star Wars for all its worth with standalone films and goodness knows what else—just like Disney did with its acquisition of Marvel. But this new look at Abrams' relationship with this weekend's biggest blockbuster says something about his relationship to the Star Trek lore. In an interview this week with Jon Stewart, Abrams talked about how he "never liked" Star Trek as a kid. That shows in the films, our Richard Lawson wrote in reviewing Into Darkness, which are sleek and fun but ultimately forgettable. Exactly what the original series wasn't. The original series was loaded with moral issues that had far more weight than the flimsy scenery or Shatner's line delivery. Abrams knows this, for sure, but his willingness to try to get CBS to erase that past so he could create an empire makes it seem like he didn't much respect it. Perhaps he and Disney deserve each other.


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

sorry double post


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trying to not go too far afield from the subject of Trek designs - present and past,

I've seen the interview she's referring to, and the author of the article is leaving out half the story. To be fair to Abrams, he said he never liked it as a kid - but also said after watching it as an adult he likes it.

Something the author leaves out. Plus the idea he was trying to wanted to wipe out merchandise from the 60's series isn't evidenced in the story at all.

It's just something she irresponsibilly infers.

Then the author contradicts herself by pointing out the fact that he never could do that legally anyway.

Where is her evidence that Abrams "tried" to do something it's legally impossible for him to do? 

Even though I don't like some of his decisions, he's a smart guy.

Then she uses her own contradiction as a basis to infer that maybe that's why he wanted to steer Star Wars.

Never does she even ask the obvious question, "Why would Paramount or CBS even consider taking stuff off the shelf that is making them money in order to make a director happy?"

Really sloppy journalism that contradicts itself, then uses that very contradiction to infer yet another leap in logic.

It simply looks like the woman took a small part of Abram's interview, diliberately left out other parts, and twisted it into a story that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Always ask yourself, "Does this make sense in terms of money?"

I think the woman who wrote that article was merely trying to pay
her rent. Journalistically and logically the story has more holes in it
then a block of Swiss cheese.

To bring it back to classic SciFi designs we all know and love,

I doubt anyone's going to be wiping out merchandise that
makes so many people money because of a director.

Classic Trek, Star Wars and other designs and merchandise
are probably safe as long as there is money to be made off of them.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chrisisall said:


> Thanks Indy!!!:thumbsup:


You're welcome! :wave:


Frankly, when I look at the pic of the "Vengeance", the first thing that comes to mind is "he's trying to get away on-the-cheap".

Just a bigger version of the same thing with some negligible tweaks? Where's the art and production design in that??

I mean - in the 60's TV series they just used the same model over again because they were poor. But with the multi-millions they had for this new movie, why did they go so cheap on the creativity?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> I mean - in the 60's TV series they just used the same model over again because they were poor. But with the multi-millions they had for this new movie, why did they go so cheap on the creativity?


Come, come, Mr. Indy. Young minds, fresh warmed-over simplistic ideas. Be tolerant.
:tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> . . . I doubt anyone's going to be wiping out merchandise that makes so many people money because of a director.
> 
> Classic Trek, Star Wars and other designs and merchandise are probably safe as long as there is money to be made off of them.


After reading several stories on the matter, I do think there was an attempt to "erase the past" on Abrams part. That seems evident from the inherent "brand confusion." It was a smart financial move on his part in an attempt to get a cut out of everything new being produced by making sure all the products were ones he had a hand in/were his versions. The fact that he could never accomplish that due to the lucrative merchandising still going on (from a nearly 50 year old production!) in no way diminishes the fact that he _tried _to do that.

It's too bad that he didn't come up with something original in the genre that he could make money off of for as long as he wanted instead of glomming onto existing properties. 

So, to sum up, I agree in that I don't think we were ever in danger of our losing access to classic Trek model kits and such due to the nature of the competing contracts but I do think there was an attempt to do just that by Abrams.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

THAT IS GREAT NEWS!!!

Why, you may ask? WHY?

BECAUSE.....

That means when JJ takes the reins of Star Wars, he can add an engine scoop to the Millennium Falcon and make it his own!!!

Then he can make sure that only Millennium Falcons with engine scoops are manufactured and sold, giving all Star Wars fans reason to rejoice!!

Because everyone in this thread is rejoicing his Fugly-prise will fade and be forgotten....


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> Because everyone in this thread is rejoicing his Fugly-prise will fade and be forgotten....


Is it really that horribly designed & executed?

*I'm bad*


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chrisisall said:


> Is it really that badly designed & executed?



Of course not.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> Of course not.


Shirley you jest.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chrisisall said:


> Shirley you jest.


No JJ-jesting. And don't call me..... :dude:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chrisisall said:


> Is it really that horribly designed & executed?
> 
> *I'm bad*


It was designed? You mean...that wasn't an accident?? 

I want the engine scoop on the Millennium Abrams to be really big and go VROOOOMMMMMM......


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

This is the deal.....

With JJA unable to get a cut of merchandising profits by forcing his Fugly-prise on everyone, his Fugly-prise will be forgotten sooner rather than later.

HOWEVER - I started watching Steve Neill's Garage on Youtube recently - and it looks like he may get his own show (like Monster Garage) on network TV or cable...

AND BEST OF ALL - he wants to petition to return the TOS E to it's original studio (taking it back from the Smithsonian) and PROFESSIONALLY RESTORE it to better represent the filming model as it was!

That means guys like him, Doug Drexler, maybe Gary Kerr, Mike Okuda, etc would be in charge!! Which means - No Screw-ups!! 

He wants to do this in time for the next Star Trek anniversary.

So the TOS E will be in good hands long after the unsold JJ-prise toys have been dumped out of the odd-lot bargain bins.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> This is the deal.....
> 
> With JJA unable to get a cut of merchandising profits by forcing his Fugly-prise on everyone, his Fugly-prise will be forgotten sooner rather than later.
> 
> ...



The most telling thing in all that is "return the TOS E to it's original studio."

I'm flat out against that.

One of the Klingon miniatures was returned to Paramount and look how that turned out.

Once it's out of the Smithsonian's hands as an owned exhibit kiss her goodbye.

Raising the funds to have her restored I can buy into.

Letting Paramount getting ownership of her, (insert your own expletive here) *NO! *


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The most telling thing in all that is "return the TOS E to it's original studio."
> 
> I'm flat out against that.
> 
> ...


Well, Steve Neill sounds like a reasonable guy without much of an ego. If you made a good case that it should be restored but kept at the Smithsonian, I'm sure he would listen. He and whatever team was assembled could still do the restore but leave it in the Smithsonian.

BUT - the interesting thing is - would the Smithsonian be willing to release it at all? There have been people saying the museum looks down on it because it is not a real flying vehicle.

So one would think they would be glad to be rid of it....

UNLESS...it actually does draw visitors and they would consider it releasing something that is an asset to them, not a burden...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

BTW - I think Steve Neill has a Google chat Sunday nights - so you could always discuss it with him yourself.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Well, Steve Neill sounds like a reasonable guy without much of an ego. If you made a good case that it should be restored but kept at the Smithsonian, I'm sure he would listen. He and whatever team was assembled could still do the restore but leave it in the Smithsonian.
> 
> BUT - the interesting thing is - would the Smithsonian be willing to release it at all? There have been people saying the museum looks down on it because it is not a real flying vehicle.
> 
> ...



Which Steve Neil's Garage number does he discuss this in?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Which Steve Neil's Garage number does he discuss this in?



I don't recall - I just recently started watching his Reliant build (# in the 250's)
but I have clicked on random ones that looked interesting without noting the number.

But you can post a comment in the most recent one and ask for the Google Chat he has - I haven't joined (yet) so I don't have the details.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Well, Steve Neill sounds like a reasonable guy without much of an ego. If you made a good case that it should be restored but kept at the Smithsonian, I'm sure he would listen. He and whatever team was assembled could still do the restore but leave it in the Smithsonian.
> 
> BUT - the interesting thing is - would the Smithsonian be willing to release it at all? There have been people saying the museum looks down on it because it is not a real flying vehicle.
> 
> ...


People have made comments about negative stuff they've heard from museum people while visiting the exhibit. They've even quoted comments made by vendors setting up stuff nearby.

As hardcore Trek fans, you or I might be taken aback by it,
or tempted to assign more significance to such negativity then
a non-Trek fan would,

when really it's 99.9999999% likely these comments are from just few bored employees
who obviously don't care about Trek one way or the other; just moaning
and complaining about something they and maybe a couple of other
employees are tired of staring at.



Go into any museum, or museum gift shop for that matter,
or heck - pick a Target store for that matter -

and find some people working by an exhibit or display that they have
to work around and have stared at day after day, week after
week, year after year.

You are going to hear some negative stuff.

It's human nature. People don't keep on gushing over a
display for years. But they will keep repeating negative
stuff ad nauseum.

That doesn't mean the board of directors of the museum,
or whatever place you might want to name,

feels the same way.

It's just human nature for people who work around stuff
they themselves aren't very into to bitch.

It doesn't really mean they speak for the Smithsonian in
any official way.

It's scuttlebut. Nothing official, and happens almost everywhere.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> I don't recall - I just recently started watching his Reliant build (# in the 250's)
> but I have clicked on random ones that looked interesting without noting the number.
> 
> But you can post a comment in the most recent one and ask for the Google Chat he has - I haven't joined (yet) so I don't have the details.


I'll go through them a bit later and try to see where he talks about it.
I don't want to respond to him without hearing how he phrased it,
out of fairness to the guy.

There is just a *ton* of "non-modeling" info in every one of those videos, so I can only watch them one at a time and even then I sometimes
have to take a break. :freak:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Here - try this:

http://steveneill.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/google-hangout-for-steve-neills-garage/

You can join and just ask him what his plans would be if he could restore the TOS E as part of his show, then ask about the details that concern you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Here - try this:
> 
> http://steveneill.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/google-hangout-for-steve-neills-garage/
> 
> You can join and just ask him what his plans would be if he could restore the TOS E as part of his show, then ask about the details that concern you.



Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

You're welcome! 

Pretty darn good for a scratch-build....

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l114/U-812/66 inch Enterprise model build/P1050988.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> Pretty darn good for a scratch-build....
> 
> http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l114/U-812/66 inch Enterprise model build/P1050988.jpg


Beautiful work!

The guy is a fantastically talented man.

Reminds me of the Greg Jein Enterprise. I'm wondering if he worked with him on that? I know they were selling them out of some place in Chicago for awhile. There aren't too many people other then Steve Neil and Jein with the skills and pockets capable of pulling something that impressive off.

Good to see someone making a living doing something they love!

Thanks for the pic! :thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Beautiful work!
> 
> The guy is a fantastically talented man.
> 
> ...


He has done a lot in the industry - even making Spock's ears for the original Trek movies.

I would be real comfortable with him in charge of a TOS E restore.

He said in his latest vid that after he builds the K'Tinga for a client, if things are slow, he might build the 1/350 TOS E he was given (by a friend?).

That'll be interesting....


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> He has done a lot in the industry - even making Spock's ears for the original Trek movies.
> 
> I would be real comfortable with him in charge of a TOS E restore.
> 
> ...


He would definitely be a great guy I'd trust restoring the TOS E.

I'd just like her to stay right where she is in the Smithsonian,
once restored.

I wouldn't even like to see her moved from the gift shop,
despite what negative things a few non-Trek loving 
museum employees might have to say about it,

at least where she is now you can see her both at ground
level and from above.

It's in a good location.

If they moved it, they would either use the space for trinkets,
or maybe put something like a model of the Howard Hughes'
Spruce Goose or something there.

Then people would be bitching "it's just a model. It's not even
the real plane!!!"


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As hardcore Trek fans, you or I might be taken aback by it,


I'm not sure I would classify myself as a hard-core Trekkie/Trekker because:

I have never attended a convention
I have not seen many episodes of Star Trek beyond TOS or even some of the movies with the original cast
I don't have any uniforms


What I do have is a respect for TOS because, at the time, it was an original effort to (at its best - not always) put forth something on mass media that was above the mind-numbing banal fodder that TV is famous for.

At least it sometimes had subtexts that could be interpreted beyond the obvious storyline if one wanted to look for them.

However, I also know cotton-candy when I see it - and that is what the nu-Trek is to me.

IMO Star Trek needs regular hiatuses - because you can't keep coming up with good episodes forever. It needs to recharge its batteries until another crop of intelligent writers comes along to revive it. 

The current nu-Trek is a space-filler. Cotton-candy. Maybe it's even a good distraction until something more substantial comes along in the Trek universe again.

The only thing I really dislike about it is that they don't even seem to put any effort into it - the designs or the stories.

I mean - come on - multi-millions and you can't even come up with an original story?? Lazy ....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> I mean - come on - multi-millions and you can't even come up with an original story?? Lazy bast---rds....


Great point!

I've always wanted to see something like Spock, Messiah! brought to the big screen. It brings up interesting questions about interactions with alien races and was, IIRC, a great adventure. It wouldn't even have to have Spock but could exist in the ST universe with new characters. There's a lot out there that has been created in the ST universe that could be tapped or at least could be inspiration for new movies.










Of course, not everyone thinks of it highly the way I remember it but, like I said, there is definitely some great potential in it. More information on the plot available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Spock-Messiah-Star-Theodore-Cogswell/dp/0553246747


BTW: Apparently they tweaked the nu1701 CGI model. 


* *




Not sure if it was the result of a refit that's in the movie storyline near the end or what 
but here's the thread on HT in case you might have missed. 
UPDATE: Just found out that it WAS the result of the refit at the end of the movie. 












I think they made it even uglier if that's possible.  Here's the HT thread link:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=394292


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

I think an interesting model building challenge would be to see who can make the best redesigned ship out of this pig. Maybe take a Playmates 09 JJPrise as a starting point(or a Revell JJPrise if one has money to burn) and redo it so it looks better. I would redo it to be the SS Bonaventure from the animated Star Trek episode Time Trap. For some reason that is what first came to mind when I saw that first picture of the JJPrise. Probably due to its odd fat warp engines and it's disproportionate engineering hull.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Soooo, anyone here rooting for the Klingons:

http://davemetlesits.deviantart.com...96999#/art/Starbattle-127680061?_sid=30e75fb5


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

MOSUGOJI said:


> I think an interesting model building challenge would be to see who can make the best redesigned ship out of this pig.


LOL!! Sorry that's so funny! The Piggyprise.:tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> LOL!! Sorry that's so funny! The Piggyprise.:tongue:


I thought this was the Piggyprise:











And here's the refit with paneling detail:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

:thumbsup: The refit actually looks better than the JJPrise! I you want to make some heads explode post that over on the TrekBBS!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> :thumbsup: The refit actually looks better than the JJPrise! If you want to make some heads explode post that over on the TrekBBS!


Ha! That would be too mean--to the "Pigs in Space" series, that is! 

You see, I'm a huge Muppet Show fan and I take very, very personally any insult given to any aspect of the show, especially "Pigs in Space."


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

J_Indy said:


> I mean - come on - multi-millions and you can't even come up with an original story?? Lazy ....


'Fascinating!' 

You know, I'm a 54-year old Trek fan whose favorite TV show has always been TOS over any other Trek series—or movie. I just came back from the new movie which I saw with my 15-year-old son. I don't know who enjoyed the movie more, he or I. That's two generations coming together to thoroughly enjoy Trek! We were both glued to our seats for 2 hours and 12 minutes. I was blown away by everything on the screen: the tongue-in-cheek story, the well-known heroes so faithfully re-created for us "original" fans, the mind-blowing special effects to snare the fans to follow. I laughed and cried, cheered and clapped. I gasped with surprise and nodded with satisfaction. 

JJ-detractors would think us easy JJ-targets, or lazy JJ-thinkers, or mindless JJ-cattle. 

What I am is very happy and appreciative that JJ Abrams is making Star Trek movies and Star Trek ships. Nothing takes away from my enjoyment of the continuing voyages. That's enough for me—and my son. 

I believe JJ Abrams' bumper sticker reads: 'You can never please 'em all.' Fortunately for the future of the Star Trek franchise, no one expects he has to.

I'm sure JJ Abrams right about now is rightfully feeling much like Roy Scheider having once again taken lethal aim at his target: "Smile, you son of a %#@&*!"


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> I laughed and cried, cheered and clapped. I gasped with surprise and nodded with satisfaction.


You _cried?_ Really? Should we expect some Academy Award nominations for this one?

At last count, there were at least three other threads you could gush on and be very welcome to do so. Please avail yourself of those opportunities.



Proper2 said:


> Some would think us easy JJ-targets, or lazy JJ- thinkers, or mindless JJ-cattle.


No. Just. No. This isn't personal. Why are you taking it that way? Are you being paid to promote the film?

I like lots of different stuff. I just don't like this. 

You have my permission to like whatever you want. Whether I have your permission or not, I'll like whatever I want--some of it, no doubt, you'd find stupid. I don't care. You shouldn't either.

There's room in the world--and on the internet--for a diversity of opinion. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination."


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You _cried?_ Really? Should we expect some Academy Award nominations for this one?


Yes.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> You _cried?_ Should we expect some Academy Award nominations for this one?


So, all the movies in which you cried, if you ever have, are Oscar winners?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

How much do you get paid for being a shill? 

And why do you avoid responding to this:



PerfesserCoffee said:


> No. Just. No. This isn't personal. Why are you taking it that way? Are you being paid to promote the film?
> 
> I like lots of different stuff. I just don't like this.
> 
> ...


I'm REALLY very curious.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> So, all the movies in which you cried, if you ever have, are Oscar winners?


Personality wise, I'm a Vulcan. Vulcan's don't cry. Only now I'm sure for some reason you're going to mention that Spock cries in STID. :wave:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Personality wise, I'm a Vulcan. Vulcan's don't cry. Only now I'm sure for some reason you're going to mention that Spock cries in STID. :wave:


Oh, I cry like a baby... but you won't get any spoilers out of me. BTW, I'm curious, are you going to see the new movie or not?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee;4534717[/I said:


> At last count, there were at least three other threads you could gush on and be very welcome to do so. Please avail yourself of those opportunities.


OK, sorry.




PerfesserCoffee;4534717[/I said:


> No. Just. No. This isn't personal. Why are you taking it that way? Are you being paid to promote the film?
> 
> I like lots of different stuff. I just don't like this.
> 
> ...


OK, likewise, I just felt like expressing myself. Nothing personal. I realize I'm in the wrong thread, like you said. I guess I lost my way.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> You won't get any spoilers out of me.


_Rats! Foiled again! _ :tongue:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Proper2 said:


> Oh, I cry like a baby... but you won't get any spoilers out of me. BTW, I'm curious, are you going to see the new movie or not?


So, are you going to see the movie?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> OK, likewise, I just felt like expressing myself. Nothing personal. I realize I'm in the wrong thread.


I don't think any less of you for liking the movie. I just disagree. That's all.

People have pooped all over one of my favorite ST films: _ST:Generations_. And I have taken it in very good humor even after my initial shock when finding out that most folks don't like it. I've read every comment with fascination and have to concede the faults on many points made. I've even brought up the movie's many faults in conversations. _But I still love the movie!_

I'm no less a man if anyone says something disparaging about it. I'm not the movie. I didn't produce the movie. I'm in no way responsible for the movie. I'm not even friends with the people who made the movie. I just like it a lot. And I realize others do not. I do not have to defend it and feel no moral obligation to do so except to perhaps mention that I liked it despite its faults.:wave:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> So, are you going to see the movie?


Not in the theater.

I've seen the first _nuTrek _and was wholly underwhelmed by the massive _deus ex machina_ contrivances. I've read the plot summary of _nuTrek II_ on Wikipedia so it's not going to get any of my money at the theater. I may rent it on Redbox later on sometime to satisfy my curiosity but that's it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Not in the theater.
> 
> I've seen the first _nuTrek _and was wholly underwhelmed by the massive _deus ex machina_ contrivances. I've read the plot summary of _nuTrek II_ on Wikipedia so it's not going to get any of my money at the theater. I may rent it on Redbox later on sometime to satisfy my curiosity but that's it.


Not sure how much you know about the plot so I don't wanna give anything away, but I'm a sucker for the... scenario in this one. I ate it up! BTW, I didn't hate _Generations_, still enjoyed it, although not my favorite Trek-movie. I'm not crazy about TNG in general, but heck I'll watch any Trek show/movie—except _DS9_ and _Voyager_. :drunk:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> I'm not crazy about TNG in general, but heck I'll watch any Trek show/movie—except _DS9_ and _Voyager_. :drunk:


HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE _DS9 _AND _VOYAGER_???

_Just kidding! _


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Remember, this is a thread about HATE.

Nothing positive or uplifting to be expressed here.

Move along. Move along.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> Remember, this is a thread about HATE.
> 
> Nothing positive or uplifting to be expressed here.
> 
> Move along. Move along.


Aye, laddie. Sorry to have rained on yer parade. I didn't mean to say that the JJ-prise should be hauling garbage... 

Movin' along.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Proper2, I think it's more of a case that you "sunshined" on the parade.  

:wave:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You _cried?_ Really? Should we expect some Academy Award nominations for this one
> "


To be honest I too cried during the 2009 movie-once I saw what was done to the poor Enterprise by Abrams,


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MOSUGOJI said:


> To be honest I too cried during the 2009 movie-once I saw what was done to the poor Enterprise by Abrams,


There, there! It will all be forgotten soon--soon as the _Star Wars_ fans start complaining.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> 'Fascinating!'
> 
> You know, I'm a 54-year old Trek fan whose favorite TV show has always been TOS over any other Trek series—or movie. I just came back from the new movie which I saw with my 15-year-old son. I don't know who enjoyed the movie more, he or I. That's two generations coming together to thoroughly enjoy Trek! We were both glued to our seats for 2 hours and 12 minutes. I was blown away by everything on the screen: the tongue-in-cheek story, the well-known heroes so faithfully re-created for us "original" fans, the mind-blowing special effects to snare the fans to follow. I laughed and cried, cheered and clapped. I gasped with surprise and nodded with satisfaction.
> 
> ...


I think it is great that you enjoyed it with your son. Bonding is a good thing. :thumbsup:

Now that I know that the JJA version won't forcibly supplant the original series designs, it really doesn't matter to me.

The Jefferies-inspired versions lasted for coming-up-to 50 years. Time will tell how long the JJA versions last.

As Khan said in the original TWOK - "Revenge is a dish best served cold." (Yes, I know it was originally a Russian saying - Chekov was proud )

BTW - the Steve Neill Google chat has limited space (though some people are gracious enough to bow out and let others in once their questions are answered).

He is not a fan of the nuTrek, so that may irk some who are. However, what he is, is an expert craftsman and model-maker who has a history in the industry. He is also friends with professionals who worked on original Trek series and movies.

I've already picked up some good info in his answers to other people's questions. I didn't know why silicone molds only lasted for about 10 pulls, but he explained it in an answer from someone else's question (also learned about Ultracal for making large molds). 

He is a cool guy with no ego - and he can answer any modeling question you can think up.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

This is good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OyUN5vG1T8k

And I think that image is the box-art on the 1/350....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> This is good
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OyUN5vG1T8k
> 
> And I think that image is the box-art on the 1/350....


Yeah, that is really fantastic! Well said!:thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, that is really fantastic! Well said!:thumbsup:


I agree. 

BTW - you wouldn't be the ProfCoffee on another site that uses Volume charts with an Ergodic on another site by any chance...?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> I'm a 54-year old Trek fan whose favorite TV show has always been TOS over any other Trek series—or movie. I just came back from the new movie which I saw with my 15-year-old son. I don't know who enjoyed the movie more, he or I. That's two generations coming together to thoroughly enjoy Trek! We were both glued to our seats for 2 hours and 12 minutes. I was blown away by everything on the screen: the tongue-in-cheek story, the well-known heroes so faithfully re-created for us "original" fans, the mind-blowing special effects to snare the fans to follow. I laughed and cried, cheered and clapped. I gasped with surprise and nodded with satisfaction.


Um, dude, I'm not sure you're allowed to post anything positive on this thread with regards to the ship, or discuss the new film content at all...
But just speaking for my own self I'm glad you guys had a great time!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes, this is the thread for the Haters to post their hate. The other thread is for the Lovers to post their love. 

Please keep that in mind in the future. 

Thanks.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

You are not the only one who does,so do I!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> BTW - you wouldn't be the ProfCoffee on another site that uses Volume charts with an Ergodic on another site by any chance...?


No, not the same person although our personalities average out about the same--given enough time.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Griffworks said:


> Yes, this is the thread for the Haters to post their hate. The other thread is for the Lovers to post their love.
> 
> Please keep that in mind in the future.
> 
> Thanks.


Yeah, I kinda knew that. I just lost my way... after seeing the new JJ-movie.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, I kinda knew that. I just lost my way... after seeing the new JJ-movie.


So dude, what do you hate about the ship? Surely you can't be a fan of the brewery?:tongue:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chrisisall said:


> So dude, what do you hate about the ship? Surely you can't be a fan of the brewery?:tongue:


I don't really analyze the brewery, I guess. I'm not an engineer to have expectations of what the engineering section ought to look like. I mean who really knows? I just give it the benefit of the doubt and it just doesn't bother me; it doesn't detract from the movie or the ship. A ship is like a beautiful woman. There are many types and looks of beautiful women. All beautiful in their own way. None are "better," they just have differing features that are attractive in their own way if you see each feature for what it is. To me, toothy is beautiful (Carol Marcus), others can't understand why. I like a fit woman with a little muscle tone, others not so much... OK approaching the land of TMI... :dude:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> None are "better," they just have differing features that are attractive in their own way if you see each feature for what it is. To me, toothy is beautiful (Carol Marcus), others can't understand why. I like a fit woman with a little muscle tone, others not so much... OK approaching the land of TMI... :dude:


I like big butts, and I cannot lie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I like big butts, and I cannot lie.


Me, too. But not on my starships.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

And who could forget Spinal Tap's "Big Bottom, Big Bottom - My Girl's Got'em"....


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Me, too. But not on my starships.


Really? There sure was a lot of complaining about the skinny fantail on the JJprise.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> I like big butts, and I cannot lie.


You and I are kindred spirits in that regard. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## MOSUGOJI (Oct 26, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Bashing this thing would be a piece of cake.
> 
> Only question is whether to use a baseball bat or a 7 iron.


I myself would prefer to hang it from a tree branch and first put a couple .22 holes through the saucer to simulate torpedo hits like in Star Trek 6,then finish it off with some fireworks to simulate a self destruct occuring. Film the entire thing and burn it to dvd and mail to to old JJ to show him how much us fans "appreciate" his redesign. Somebody did something similar back in '98 with one of the Trendmaster "Godzilla" toys from Dean Devlin's abominable rendition of Godzilla and sent hip a video of it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Really? There sure was a lot of complaining about the skinny fantail on the JJprise.


It's actually got to be very big to hold that huge hangar bay. :tongue:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Doesn't matter how much CGI Hangar Bay they stuff in there, the proportions are not balanced to the rest of the ship. If the undercut was less severe and the whole secondary hull was moved back the ship would look so much nicer. I have seen it photoshopped like that before, I am looking forward to seeing a kit mod built that way


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The undercut's there for, like, uh, aerodynamics. Reduce turbulence and all. Makes it go faster. Like painting flames on the hull! Yeah!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Richard Baker said:


> Doesn't matter how much CGI Hangar Bay they stuff in there, the proportions are not balanced to the rest of the ship. If the undercut was less severe and the whole secondary hull was moved back the ship would look so much nicer. I have seen it photoshopped like that before, I am looking forward to seeing a kit mod built that way


Yeah, it would be interesting to see what a difference that would make.:thumbsup:


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

SteveR said:


> The undercut's there for, like, uh, aerodynamics. Reduce turbulence and all.


With the Enterprise UNDER WATER and IN ATMOSPHERE several times that makes sense, in a creepy way... :drunk:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> With the Enterprise UNDER WATER and IN ATMOSPHERE several times that makes sense, in a creepy way... :drunk:


Ugh! I never thought about that. 

It is strange that Jar-Jar Abrams put the ship underwater and in the atmosphere since one of the things that was most realistic about the _USS Enterprise_ was that it was restricted to spaceflight and orbiting planets due to the fact that it was not designed for atmospheric entry and flight. 

The ship had its role, the transporter and shuttlecraft took people down to the planets and it all made perfect sense. There was a realistic, economic design to the whole process in its division of labor. 

If the ship had its limitations, there was a sense of vulnerability. One realized that it was not built like a tank and was, in the wrong setting, extremely vulnerable and likely to be destroyed or badly damaged.

The new ship is designed along the capabilities of the _Star Wars_ ships that hover majestically above the ground and land on a regular basis. Not that there isn't a certain appeal to that--it certainly works in the space fantasy of a galaxy far, far away--but to have the 1701 do that when it violates one of the founding characteristics of the ship is jarring to say the least.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ... but to have the 1701 do that when it violates one of the founding characteristics of the ship is jarring to say the least.


Jar-jarring?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Jar-jarring?


Ha! I should have said that!


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ugh! I never thought about that.
> 
> It is strange that Jar-Jar Abrams put the ship underwater and in the atmosphere since one of the things that was most realistic about the _USS Enterprise_ was that it was restricted to spaceflight and orbiting planets due to the fact that it was not designed for atmospheric entry and flight.
> 
> ...


It's OK for Trek ships to do the atmospheric entry thing if and only if the ship in question has landing gear like Voyager and the Klingon BOP. I think this was added to the rules somewhere along the way.

Sooo where's the Nu E landing gear? Naughty ships without landing gear entering the atmosphere should end up like the 1701D. Fairs fair.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ugh! I never thought about that.
> 
> 
> The new ship is designed along the capabilities of the _Star Wars_ ships that hover majestically above the ground and land on a regular basis. Not that there isn't a certain appeal to that--it certainly works in the space fantasy of a galaxy far, far away--but to have the 1701 do that when it violates one of the founding characteristics of the ship is jarring to say the least.


I wanna see JJ land the Death Star in his Star Wars movie!!! 

That wud be sooooo coooooooolllllll....... 

Especially if the landing gear were little stubby feet.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Question here: on other threads peeps are talking about spending north of $60 for a model of the JJPrise. Okay now, I own the Playmates toy which was around $20 when I got it, it lights up which is cool (but I disabled the annoying sound), and I touched it up a tiny bit, but _seriously_? People paying the better part of a hundred for a model of it???


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Chrisisall said:


> Question here: on other threads peeps are talking about spending north of $60 for a model of the JJPrise. Okay now, I own the Playmates toy which was around $20 when I got it, it lights up which is cool (but I disabled the annoying sound), and I touched it up a tiny bit, but _seriously_? People paying the better part of a hundred for a model of it???


Different strokes, man. I hated the JJprise when I first saw it, but it's grown on me. Still not the prettiest ship, but I bought a model of it because it has some cool stuff.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Some people sincerely love the movie and the redesign of the ship.

Even not being a fan of it, the Revell mold of the kit actually looks to be of good quality.

It'll never end up on my shelf, but it'll take center place on some people's.

Also, they may kit-bash it into a better version...


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

J_Indy said:


> Even not being a fan of it, the Revell mold of the kit actually looks to be of good quality.


Oh, definitely! Still, as radical redsigns go, I'd put that $ towards a model of the Enterprise E before the JJPrise!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Sparky said:


> It's OK for Trek ships to do the atmospheric entry thing if and only if the ship in question has landing gear like Voyager and the Klingon BOP. I think this was added to the rules somewhere along the way.


Yeah, there were ships built to do that and the _Voyager _was a much more advanced design. At least the _Voyager _seems to pay more respect to physics when landing instead of floating around as if filled with hydrogen.



Sparky said:


> Sooo where's the Nu E landing gear? Naughty ships without landing gear entering the atmosphere should end up like the 1701D. Fairs fair.


Ha! Good point!




J_Indy said:


> I wanna see JJ land the Death Star in his Star Wars movie!!!
> 
> That wud be sooooo coooooooolllllll.......
> 
> Especially if the landing gear were little stubby feet.


Very good point. The Death Star is probably the ONLY ship that isn't capable of planetary landing. Of course, I'm assuming a lot here. :wave:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The Death Star is probably the ONLY ship that isn't capable of planetary landing.


Tuck and roll! Tuck and roll!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Very good point. The Death Star is probably the ONLY ship that isn't capable of planetary landing. Of course, I'm assuming a lot here. :wave:



A SpaceShip that is BUILT in Space? And STAYS in Space????? 

Fortunately, JJA was able to disabuse us from that inaccurate notion in nuTrek...

Now he will have the opportunity to do the same in JJA's Star Wars!! :thumbsup:

I think the bottom of the Death Star should open up - and then a huge statue of Atlas comes out as if supporting the weight of the Death Star!!

Then, not only are they there to disintegrate you - but it's a work of art!


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

J_Indy said:


> Now he will have the opportunity to do the same in JJA's Star Wars!! :thumbsup:


Be afraid.... Be very afraid.

I am just sooo glad somebody else beat him to reimaging Battlestar Galactica. Now there was a reimagining done right. 

Unless of course there can be a reimagining of a reimagining. Oh crap.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> I think the bottom of the Death Star should open up - and then a huge statue of Atlas comes out as if supporting the weight of the Death Star!!
> 
> Then, not only are they there to disintegrate you - but it's a work of art!


That is freakin' _*BRILLIANT!*_ :roll:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Sparky said:


> I am just sooo glad somebody else beat him to reimaging Battlestar Galactica. Now there was a reimagining done right.


Agreed.

You know, on a serous note, I will give Abrams a chance on the _Star Wars_ sequels. With the right scriptwriter, it might be very good to excellent. It seems to be a property he respects and really enjoys whereas _Star Trek _was not ever anything he seriously cared for (according to Abrams himself).


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Agreed, Professor. It's my opinion that he will treat his Star Wars movie with utter respect to the material and the movie he does will totally faithful to the original movies in the vehicle designs and capabilities.

I can hardly wait to see the Millennium Falcon operate under water!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

WarpCore Breach said:


> Agreed, Professor. It's my opinion that he will treat his Star Wars movie with utter respect to the material and the movie he does will totally faithful to the original movies in the vehicle designs and capabilities.
> 
> I can hardly wait to see the Millennium Falcon operate under water!


Point taken! That's what he said about _Star Trek_, wasn't it?  We'll have to wait to see, I suppose.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SteveR said:


> Tuck and roll! Tuck and roll!


More like tuck and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll...



PerfesserCoffee said:


> You know, on a serous note, I will give Abrams a chance on the _Star Wars_ sequels. With the right scriptwriter, it might be very good to excellent. It seems to be a property he respects and really enjoys whereas _Star Trek _was not ever anything he seriously cared for (according to Abrams himself).


Didn't you know? _Star Trek_ was J.J.'s _Star Wars_ test reel.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Didn't you know? _Star Trek_ was J.J.'s _Star Wars_ test reel.


Yeah, I can believe that!:freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

These pics are from http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=394835 where ClubTepes has kindly taken the trouble to lay out three different kits of Enterprises. IMHO, such a format allows the parts to be examined individually more easily than trying to look at screen caps. The most shocking/ugly difference to me is the engineering hull:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Yeah, it's right there in your face, isn't it?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

WarpCore Breach said:


> I can hardly wait to see the Millennium Falcon operate under water!


Don't laugh. Actually in one of my Falcon technical books, it can land on water when the landing gear are outfitted with optional floats! Those Corellians think ahead!:thumbsup:


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Here's a question, what would be your minimum changes to make the JJprise exterior visually acceptable?

Mine would be:

1. Move the neck/dorsal forward to the front edge of the engineering hull. 

2. Lose the "Doomsday Machine" inspired warp engines. A more uniform width along the their length would be great. While the shape brings fond memories to mind of one of my favorite TOS episodes, it looks a bit silly for a warp engine design. 

3. Reduce the width of the neck/dorsal at the bottom or thicken the engineering hull at the rear. Side profile just looks weird.

4. Saucer is OK as is.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

That'd do it, I think!


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

JeffG said:


> Don't laugh. Actually in one of my Falcon technical books, it can land on water when the landing gear are outfitted with optional floats! Those Corellians think ahead!:thumbsup:



The NEW Death Star with Landing Gear...

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ve5ic4&s=5


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Sparky said:


> Here's a question, what would be your minimum changes to make the JJprise exterior visually acceptable?


Move the warp nacelles more outboard (i.e., further apart) similar to the TOS Enterprise; everything else I can live with.

Oh, wait, this is the "hate" thread. Uhh, yeah, do that other stuff too!


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Zombie_61 said:


> Move the warp nacelles more outboard (i.e., further apart) similar to the TOS Enterprise; everything else I can live with.
> 
> Oh, wait, this is the "hate" thread. Uhh, yeah, do that other stuff too!


I try to like it and try to imagine how to fix it. In the end though, it just looks like a kit bash gone bad. With some way out there proportions, the ship just looks silly.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Look at the windows in the secondary hull comparison photo. You could be excused for assuming that all of these models are about the same scale. But the "real" JJprise is about 3x the length of the others?!?

The JJprise is *not* a science fiction vehicle. It's a fantasy flying castle. I'm sure it is as small as the miniaturized _Proteus_ and can be injected into the human bloodstream; at the same time it is large enough that the latest movie can rip off that scene from _The Poseidon Adventure_ where the ocean liner turns upside down and that guy falls into the ballroom window -- _eight or nine times_ -- in several different cavernous interior spaces.

Maybe after he gets done with Star Wars, Abrams can reboot _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_ and we can experience the _Seaview_ launching out of the water with its rocket engines to go explore Mars...

M.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

^^^LOL of the day!:lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> The NEW Death Star with Landing Gear...


Ha! Good one! :thumbsup:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ha! Good one! :thumbsup:


The other idea is to paint Mike Wazowski of "Monsters Inc" grey and dangle him from a string.

I think he is free between Pixar movies....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> The other idea is to paint Mike Wazowski of "Monsters Inc" grey and dangle him from a string.
> 
> I think he is free between Pixar movies....












That might work, too!:thumbsup:

The Death Star beam shoots out of his eye, right?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The engines:










And the Secondary hull:











These are where the ship really loses me. The saucer ain't great but isn't that bad, either.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> That might work, too!:thumbsup:
> 
> The Death Star beam shoots out of his eye, right?


Yes - he gives a planet the "Evil Eye" and POOOFFF!!!


As far as the shape of the ship - I think they are just stuck in a bad position. Every alternate suggestion just makes the ship look more like the original refit, and that wouldn't be different enough to justify new molds, new toys, new sales....


They are kinda trapped making "same but different".

The problem they have is the original is proportioned and balanced so well visually. I think they just said "f it!" and went a bit indiscriminate and didn't bother, which is why the shuttlebay proportions seem so out of whack.

Probert, on the other hand, dealt with it like an engineer, which takes a lot of time and attention to detail.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

They tried too hard to make it look 'zoomy'- a mass forward design like a little kid would draw with speed lines.
The TOS Enterprise was designed to look grand and graceful- they were trying for a sailing ship feel and I think they nailed it. While some elements seem week (the thickness of the pylons..), that was intentional to imply great advancements in materials and engineering. I actually prefer the TOS over the Refit, it has more of a machine vibe while the Refit is more sculptural...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> They are kinda trapped making "same but different".
> 
> The problem they have is the original is proportioned and balanced so well visually.


Yeah, you're definitely onto something with that. They're also trapped by all the fan designs out there (and some similar canon designs) that they had to be different from that they seem to have hit the panic/ugly button in their desperation.



Richard Baker said:


> They tried too hard to make it look 'zoomy'- a mass forward design like a little kid would draw with speed lines.
> The TOS Enterprise was designed to look grand and graceful- they were trying for a sailing ship feel and I think they nailed it. While some elements seem week (the thickness of the pylons..), that was intentional to imply great advancements in materials and engineering. I actually prefer the TOS over the Refit, it has more of a machine vibe while the Refit is more sculptural...


Very good points.:thumbsup:


----------

