:lol: This causes me much mirth. Anyway, for anybody who's actually interested in this upcoming piece of crap, the interview's at ex-astris-scientia, and that prima donna gets pissy whenever you hotlink, so you lazy gits can find it yourselves. ;)
QuoteOS: You won't see too much of him. It amounts to a couple of minutes on two occasions in the movie. But you may not immediately recognize him the first time.
EAS: Is he wearing prosthetics or something?
OS: Not exactly. It's a bit tricky to explain. Uhm... No offense to Mr Shatner. I mean, he is in great shape for his age. But... he just didn't look good in his Starfleet uniform.
EAS: You mean, he was too fat?
OS: Those are your words. I won't take the blame. ;-) But you're right in essence. When the 'younger April' scenes had already been shot, Lisa Rontoriou, one of our editors, came to JJ [Abrams] with the suggestion to have him 'thinned' digitally.
No shit. He's been slowly swelling up ever since the Wrath of Khan.
Makes me think of the Simpsons.
Star Trex XII "So Very, Very Tired" :lol:
I cannae reach the controls, captain!
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.
How different are the two versions? That sounds really expensive.
Hasn't it already been established what the Enterprise looks like?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2009, 09:33:57 PM
How different are the two versions? That sounds really expensive.
@Tim: Pretty widely disparate. Google "Ryan Church Enterprise," and then google "Gabe Koerner Enterprise." The Church model looks like they shopped the design out to Mattel.
@Neil: Yes, we have. Unfortunately, this movie is going to be the nerd's bane: a retcon. I'm torn whether I'm looking forward to it or dreading it. I'll play it safe and say that nothing that gets Bernd Schneider that upset can be
all bad.
I like fat Kirk better than young Kirk.
So
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fstartrekenterprise%2F1.jpg&hash=f9eb86b1716a9f11272d3a0472fd25effeb87214)
vs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg255.imageshack.us%2Fimg255%2F6010%2Fent0006gq8.jpg&hash=1d589ad829b41d4c47e5625531c3ff17fa9d81a6)
?
I don't see that much of a difference. Part of one glows blue, part of the other glows orange.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 01, 2009, 10:43:34 PM
I like fat Kirk better than young Kirk.
I don't, and I haven't even seen Young Kirk yet.
I have loved Star Trek since I was about 7, but I've never liked Kirk or Shatner.
Oddly enough, I like Shatner now though - he is brilliant in Boston Legal. Or was brilliant.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 10:47:00 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 01, 2009, 10:43:34 PM
I like fat Kirk better than young Kirk.
I don't, and I haven't even seen Young Kirk yet.
I have loved Star Trek since I was about 7, but I've never liked Kirk or Shatner.
Oddly enough, I like Shatner now though - he is brilliant in Boston Legal. Or was brilliant.
By young Kirk I mean TOS Kirk.
But yeah, he was brilliant on that show.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 01, 2009, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 10:47:00 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 01, 2009, 10:43:34 PM
I like fat Kirk better than young Kirk.
I don't, and I haven't even seen Young Kirk yet.
I have loved Star Trek since I was about 7, but I've never liked Kirk or Shatner.
Oddly enough, I like Shatner now though - he is brilliant in Boston Legal. Or was brilliant.
By young Kirk I mean TOS Kirk.
But yeah, he was brilliant on that show.
Ahhh, gotcha. I thought you meant this movie young Kirk.
Definitely agree then.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 01, 2009, 10:46:56 PM
I don't see that much of a difference. Part of one glows blue, part of the other glows orange.
The second one's warp nacelles are less goofy looking, but I don't see how the difference remotely warrants two different sets of special effects. Anyone 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.
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.
I like the look of the first ship better.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 09:43:23 PM
Star Trek: Muppet Babies is a good name for it, although it has a distressing lack of pigs in space.
It does have Will Shatner in a Starfleet Uniform. That's about as close as you're gonna get. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 09:43:23 PM
Star Trek: Muppet Babies is a good name for it, although it has a distressing lack of pigs in space.
It does have Will Shatner in a Starfleet Uniform. That's about as close as you're gonna get. :contract:
But they're digitally thinning him so it doesn't really count.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2009, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 09:47:47 PM
It does have Will Shatner in a Starfleet Uniform. That's about as close as you're gonna get. :contract:
But they're digitally thinning him so it doesn't really count.
Probably just enough to make the uniform work. Where changing character appearance is concerned, even digital FX has limits.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 09:43:23 PM
Star Trek: Muppet Babies is a good name for it, although it has a distressing lack of pigs in space.
It does have Will Shatner in a Starfleet Uniform. That's about as close as you're gonna get. :contract:
:lol: Digitally thinned pigs in space. It just doesn't have the same ring, you know?
Where are you guys getting all these relative graduation dates from?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Where are you guys getting all these relative graduation dates from?
Mostly in-universe anecdotes. TOS especially had a good number of potshot lines along the lines of "I was doing {insert crew position here} while your grandfather was still in diapers."
PS - I've finally got a bitch about the way this forum parses BBcode.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2009, 09:33:57 PM
How different are the two versions?
About 60 pounds, I'd reckon.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 09:43:23 PM
Star Trek: Muppet Babies is a good name for it, although it has a distressing lack of pigs in space.
It does have Will Shatner in a Starfleet Uniform. That's about as close as you're gonna get. :contract:
Was gonna say the same. :D