SPY PHOTOS at AICN

A shotgun wedding for sure. Too bad one half of this union had to give up work, stay at home and look after the kids...

 

I'm a bit disappointed. It looks too much like Enterprise and too much like today's technology.

I think that they should have gone for the 'feel' rather than the 'look' of TOS:

Brightly lit, functional,optimistic, human-centred.

I hope the rest looks better.

 

hmm i wonder if they just threw dirt on the shuttle floor just to see if people reacted.

 

As has been stated before, we have no idea what this "craft" is, where it is, and who operates it.

I don't think this is "THE" shuttlecraft at all, nor even a true Starfleet vessel. I think this is just some craft that belongs to the people who are running that refinery/depot/or whatever that setting is.

This would not be the first time Star Trek showed "miners" or people such as that using dirty-looking ships.

 

But, remember, the moderators read this thread every day and never see anything offensive - - so long as it's support for the movie.

 

Not really worth it. Troll someone else.

 

Look, "realism" (or whatever we are calling it today) is one of the variables used in BSG, but there is much more to BSG than realism. And copying that one element (even if that's what they are doing, which is still unknown) does not a BSG make.

Besides, if anything, this look is more indicative of the current trend in successful genre prequels. Both "Batman Begins" and "Casino Royale" took a very back-to-basics approach with the look and feel of their respective universes. They attempted to convince the audience that "This could really happen," and I think they succeeded in reaching that goal. This also seems to be the secret ingredient in making non-genre fans show up to (and enjoy) genre movies.

The teaser trailer for Star Trek XI speaks very much to this. Here are real people that look just like you and I, using real tools, building the (up till now) fantasy Starship Enterprise. They made the audience believe that this thing was almost possible, and yet still fantastic enough to warrant going to see a movie about it.

It makes perfect sense that this would be the look and feel of a prequel genre film made in 2008. It's the "look" of successful genre prequel films today. And it works. The more you can get the audience to buy into the ground rules and the setting, the more easily you can take them on a fantastic journey without having them reject the whole thing.

I have no doubt that the Enterprise will be shinier and cleaner than this unknown shuttlecraft. And the people in this universe will no doubt have that feeling of optimism that we know and love in our Starfleet Officers.

A little dust does not a BSG make.

BSG uses realism very effectively. It also uses realism in the way that the characters act. They are extremely human. Too human, in fact, for many audience members to stomach. I don't need to see Star Trek go this route (and keep in mind that BSG is my favorite show), nor do I have any belief that it ever will.

Additionally, BSG has a dark and heavy tone that is practically obligatory, given the subject matter and premise. Star Trek XI is likely to have nothing of the sort, for the very same reasons.

It is perfectly reasonable to have realistic sets and props within the context of a positive, optimistic adventure story set in the future. There is no conflict between the two.

This is, in fact, very likely one of the elements that will make Trek palatable to the non-fans. And that's exactly what we need. No one has sold out. Nothing has been compromised.

And it's a simplistic fallacy to say that any sci-fi that uses grit and realism is copying BSG.

BSG didn't invent that style, nor will it be the last to use it. There are plenty of good things that are well-worth copying from BSG (realistic characters; well-written, mature stories; a fully-realized premise; thinking outside the box; taking your audience seriously and not spoon-feeding them; having the balls to take a stand and rub people the wrong way, even if it's bad for the ratings; giving us what we want instead of what we think we want; acting as a springboard for social commentary without forcing a particular agenda down our throats; making us question who we are and what we are capable of; having the self-restraint to pull the plug on yourself when you are still at the top of your game and leave them wanting more, etc.) Those elements set BSG apart from almost everything else on television (especially much of modern Star Trek). And those are the elements, if any, that should be copied. Not the dirt on the chairs.

 

Exactly Cogley...well said.

 

I agree! Excellently put.

 

I don't know how many people remember now how impressed everyone was that the sets and props in "Star Wars" looked worn and used - the "lived-in Universe" was, if not totally new, unusual enough to be a happy novelty in space sf movies in those days. Basically, the ships and in "Star Wars" looked more than anything else like the ships and props from "2001" with a whole lot of years and miles on them (there was not a whole lot of similar contemporary comparisons, in terms of an elaborate sf movie having been designed and manufactured in every detail). We thought it was a great innovation which made it - as Sam notes - much easier to buy into the "reality" of the movie.

 

TO EVERYONE THAT HAS BEEN BASHING THESE PICTURES:



Thank you, Cogley!

 

Well, I thought it was cool and makes me more excited.

 

Well... I have to agree with Mr. Ralat... I don't like this at all... the controls in the shuttle look downright crappy, but not because of one style, but rather, a unsightly multitude of them... you have strange, nondescript, UN-Trek-looking panels, next to Captain Proton reject knobs, below WB sci-fi show reject "LCARS" displays, which look like something you'd see on a kid's cartoon.

The total overuse of yellow striped caution tape makes this set look like part of the Rodger Young, from Starship Troopers, and the way the shuttles are lined up, and the men in hardhats and the set itself make it look like a place where rugged mineworkers slave away all day, or a bad attempt to capture the look and feel of New Caprica, from nuBSG.

JJ Abrams cannot make movies. Cloverfield proved this in abundance. Never in my entire life, have I *known* with 110% certainty that a film would suck , after only watching it for two full minutes, until I saw Cloverfield. Never.

Star Trek is it's own special universe, with it's own rules and look. EVEN nuBSG respected the look of the TOS BSG Cylons, when they made Razor. They knew that to do otherwise, would be a disservice to the fans, and the integrity of the original Battlestar Galactica show. If JJ is gonna make a Trek film, THAT is what he needs to make... and not go into it with this "Wheee! I'm gonna get to play in Gene Roddenberry's universe, but first I'll do whatever I want with it." attitude. Trek is probably older than he is... he needs to respect both its age, cultural status, and loyal fan base, that made it what it is today.

 

Why?

The opening was mundane and pedantic, the characters were shallow, annoying as hell, and plain stupid, the camera work was THE WORST I have EVER seen (even knowing it was meant to be shaky), it was overdone to the point of being laughably stupid and silly.

And JJ did not even honor the canon IN HIS OWN MOVIE, LMAO... in the end of the flick, when the monster is "supposedly" destroyed, by bombing Manhattan... WTF do we see? TWO F-18's, flying AWAY from the STILL LIVING monster, in BROAD daylight, LOL... what a stupid joke of a movie.

If you think that was quality filmmaking... I'm sorry... there's nothing I can say that would not get me warned or banned.

 

That'd be nice... but Abrams didn't "make Cloverfield" he was only a producer, as far as that goes. Usually directors make movies not producers. Never mind that this opinion seems to be a minority one to say the least regarding Cloverfield - most everyone else liked it so much so the studio was already talking sequel with its director before it even got released. This is a bit like making a judgment on a painter/artist on how the guy who handles his money, and arranges his showings does things.

I had to laugh when you said "the controls in the shuttle look downright crappy, but not because of one style, but rather, a unsightly multitude of them... you have strange, nondescript, UN-Trek-looking panels,"

that's a funny thing to take issue concerning a Trek at all which has always been filled with oodles of buttons (tos - who can tell what any of those candy looking things even do?) I won't even talk about LCARS most boring messy visuals going.

That is its own worst problem - its become much to "special" for its own well being.

Yawn... first I doubt RDM was thinking any of that (I think a few BSG tos fans would disagree) and second we aren't able to say at the moment exactly what Abrams has done yet and judge if tis "respecting GR Universe" something

Once again, wrong guy - Abrams didn't shoot or direct film. Saying it was his own movie is miss stating facts. You're basically blaming a producer for a director's choices...

Sharr

 

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?