News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Shatner too fat for Star Trek

Started by DontSayBanana, April 01, 2009, 08:52:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jimmy olsen

I like the look of the first ship better.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Josquius

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 01, 2009, 09:27:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:00:09 PM
No shit.  He's been slowly swelling up ever since the Wrath of Khan.
Yeah. On a related note, after actually getting all the way through that interview, I recommend any Trek fans here read it. A quick summary is that either JJ Abrams or this guy is pulling a fake-out marketing campaign.

According to Olaf Sporil, postproduction completely redid the VFX for the movie... for this market. What was showing up as a trailer here is supposed to only be the product shown in Latin America, Russia, eastern Germany, and most of the Africas ("Fans with considerably lower income or with high debts prefer the Church Enterprise").

Reading between the lines, VFX heard that their new "Swoosh" Enterprise didn't go over too well with the die-hard fans, and at the last minute, they dropped it in favor of Gabe Körner's concept, which had initially been mistaken for the new design.

:blink:
Thats just weird. What a odd choice of places. Eastern Germany? heh....

I like the first one. Looks very 60s. And the second looks like it has a big cannon on its bottom bit (the blue glow on the top one)
██████
██████
██████

DontSayBanana

There's big, big differences, actually. They have to resort to money shots to hide how badly proportioned the top model is. Those nacelles are HUGE. The bottom part, the "engineering hull" in Trekkiese, is actually smaller than any of the other parts. From an oblique angle, it looks OK, but from a side or front view, it looks like a flying saucer loosely connected to two dog turds by the engineering hull.

The bottom pic, the Gabe Koerner, is mostly just a modernization of the original Enterprise design; there's a couple places where the hull's been recessed or extruded, there's some greebling to make it look less organic and more manufactured. Word is that JJ Abrams actually preferred it because it was closer in style to Battlestar Galactica (to the extent that the lettering on the ship is "BATTLESTAR USS ENTERPRISE" - hope he had the decency to leave "BATTLESTAR" in Colonial, if that's true :bleeding:)

Personally, I just like the Koerner better because the Church model makes me want to scream "SWOOSH!" every time I see it. Can't say I'm a trek ship purist, either - I love most "official" kitbashes, aside from the Yeager. :contract:

Either way, I was looking forward to the movie for comedy value, but the amount they're changing has somehow brought the trekkie in me back out, so despite everything, I find myself looking forward to the movie.
Experience bij!

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2009, 07:13:22 AM

Thats just weird. What a odd choice of places. Eastern Germany? heh....

I like the first one. Looks very 60s.
Good point, reminds me of a Cadillac.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

vinraith

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2009, 05:19:28 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 01, 2009, 11:25:20 PMAnyone so sensitive to a retcon as to object to either version of the Enterprise isn't going to get within ten miles of a movie with the unmitigated gall to recast the original cast anyway.

You must've been down the hall from my office when I pronounced this film as raping my childhood yesterday.

That's actually kind of the point. Changing the special effects isn't going to impact your (or my) decision to see this thing.

DontSayBanana

Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 08:37:56 PMThat's actually kind of the point. Changing the special effects isn't going to impact your (or my) decision to see this thing.

If there's anything I've learned from sales, it's that execs *need* market research to justify taking a crap.

Anyway, just enough of the storyline has been leaked now that my interest is actually piqued. There's gonna be more canon in this than people are giving it credit for. For example, Pike is gonna be in the wheelchair by the end of the movie.
Experience bij!

vinraith

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 08:37:56 PMThat's actually kind of the point. Changing the special effects isn't going to impact your (or my) decision to see this thing.

If there's anything I've learned from sales, it's that execs *need* market research to justify taking a crap.

Anyway, just enough of the storyline has been leaked now that my interest is actually piqued. There's gonna be more canon in this than people are giving it credit for. For example, Pike is gonna be in the wheelchair by the end of the movie.

The funny thing is I'm not really that hung up on Star Trek canon, they've fucked up their own back history so many times (and it's so non-central to the appeal of the show) that I just don't care that much. What is central to the appeal of the original series, in my opinion, is the characters. I'm sorry, you just can't recast that bunch. It honestly baffles me that they decided to try, and baffles me further that anyone's going along with it.

If this were a new Star Trek thing with a new crew, I'd probably be interested. As it is, it just looks appallingly stupid to me.

DontSayBanana

Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 08:55:08 PMThe funny thing is I'm not really that hung up on Star Trek canon, they've fucked up their own back history so many times (and it's so non-central to the appeal of the show) that I just don't care that much. What is central to the appeal of the original series, in my opinion, is the characters. I'm sorry, you just can't recast that bunch. It honestly baffles me that they decided to try, and baffles me further that anyone's going along with it.

If this were a new Star Trek thing with a new crew, I'd probably be interested. As it is, it just looks appallingly stupid to me.

I'm kinda taking a try-anything-once stance on it. The marketing has been so clouded on where it should fit into the storyline that I'm not sure if it's really a reboot - "The Cage" started well after the Enterprise's shakedown tour, and certain elements of this almost make it sound like the storyline's closer to one of the "Starfleet Academy" YA novels.
Experience bij!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 08:48:30 PMThere's gonna be more canon in this than people are giving it credit for. For example, Pike is gonna be in the wheelchair by the end of the movie.

The fact that Spock is even near the Academy is canon fail.  Spock was already an accomplished Star Fleet officer by the time Kirk had even graduated.

I shudder to think of all the crew together as younger versions.  Reminds me of the fucking Muppet Babies, for fuck's sake.

Neil

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
The fact that Spock is even near the Academy is canon fail.  Spock was already an accomplished Star Fleet officer by the time Kirk had even graduated.
And Chekov didn't graduate until Kirk was already Captain of the Enterprise.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

DontSayBanana

I didn't say it's coming without major canon fuckups/reboots; just that I'm starting to hear just enough of the meat of the story to find it interesting on its own merits.
Experience bij!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
The fact that Spock is even near the Academy is canon fail.  Spock was already an accomplished Star Fleet officer by the time Kirk had even graduated.
And Chekov didn't graduate until Kirk was already Captain of the Enterprise.

And Scotty had already been Chief Engineer since the hull was laid, and pissed that he was passed over for the captain's chair for some hotshot upstart.  But I think we've made our point.

Fuck this film.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 09:31:04 PM
I didn't say it's coming without major canon fuckups/reboots; just that I'm starting to hear just enough of the meat of the story to find it interesting on its own merits.

Well, it can go die and rot in hell, along with the corpses of Speed Racer and shitty Star Wars prequels.

DontSayBanana

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2009, 09:33:14 PMWell, it can go die and rot in hell, along with the corpses of Speed Racer and shitty Star Wars prequels.

Chill. I'm not forcing you to see it at gunpoint. I'm just explaining why I *am* going to (probably) waste the money to do so. Deep breaths, dude.
Experience bij!

vinraith

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 08:48:30 PMThere's gonna be more canon in this than people are giving it credit for. For example, Pike is gonna be in the wheelchair by the end of the movie.

The fact that Spock is even near the Academy is canon fail.  Spock was already an accomplished Star Fleet officer by the time Kirk had even graduated.

I shudder to think of all the crew together as younger versions.  Reminds me of the fucking Muppet Babies, for fuck's sake.

Star Trek: Muppet Babies is a good name for it, although it has a distressing lack of pigs in space.