How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
Ogre. I can relate. Lol. She is single, hetero and not attractive. Personality is even worse than her looks. Her hormone levels are largely not under control and it shows.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
From what I've gathered, it's an "I live in Catskill (hicktown), but want a guy from the city, but don't actually want to live anywhere near the city because, despite the fact that when I'm in a manic period I come up with all sorts of aspirational, high-minded ideas, in reality the entirety of my lifelong dreams and ambitions is contained within the perimeter of a white picket fence in the suburbs sticks where I feel safe" thing.
Anyway, finally watched Into Darkness last night. That film validated the new franchise for me.
Anyway, finally watched Into Darkness last night. That film validated the new franchise for me.
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I am OK with the new JJ-style Trek. As long as I compartmentalize it separately from the real stuff. But he should really put some anti-glare optics on his cameras (and virtual cameras) if you know what I'm sayin'.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
What I mean is this: In the scenes on earth, most of the buildings were made of, you know, building material. Bricks, concrete, roofing tiles, etc. And the civilians on earth were mostly wearing clothes that look like, well, clothes.
Aboard the ship, the engine room looked like an engine room. And the warp core (exterior) looked like something CERN would build, not a cute little prop with flashing neon lights.
Yeah, there's obviously a lot of **** about it that's still fantastic and unbelievable. I mean, it's Star Trek. But they've latched onto a visual style that makes it seem a little more... connected.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
I didn't even notice a lot of over-done lens flare in Darkness.
But no, wiseass, you know what I meme.
Also, I was joking when I said that the warp core looked like something CERN would build, meaning that it wasn't a simplistic, smooth, futuristic-looking piece of monolithic technology, but rather a very complex device with lots of dangly bits which actually looks like the sort of thing we'd use to create a fusion reaction here in the 21st century.
Turns out I was close. It's not CERN, it's the National Ignition Facility (how cool of a name is that?) at Lawrence Livermore lab, where they do, in fact, create fusion reactions.
But no, wiseass, you know what I meme.
Also, I was joking when I said that the warp core looked like something CERN would build, meaning that it wasn't a simplistic, smooth, futuristic-looking piece of monolithic technology, but rather a very complex device with lots of dangly bits which actually looks like the sort of thing we'd use to create a fusion reaction here in the 21st century.
Turns out I was close. It's not CERN, it's the National Ignition Facility (how cool of a name is that?) at Lawrence Livermore lab, where they do, in fact, create fusion reactions.
It was toned down a lot from the first one, but still somewhat gratuitous.
But yes, the visual style is quite different. I suspect part of it is that TOS and TNG were TV shows first, movies second, and the budget for a TV show is a lot lower. It's a lot cheaper to make the TNG-style props than the Into Darkness-style ones.
I question the use of the word "realistic" though. Yes, it looks more like current high-tech, but why is that more "realistic"? Into Darkness/etc are set in around 2260, roughly 250 years from now. Does the engineering deck on a modern ship look anything like this?
--Ian
But yes, the visual style is quite different. I suspect part of it is that TOS and TNG were TV shows first, movies second, and the budget for a TV show is a lot lower. It's a lot cheaper to make the TNG-style props than the Into Darkness-style ones.
I question the use of the word "realistic" though. Yes, it looks more like current high-tech, but why is that more "realistic"? Into Darkness/etc are set in around 2260, roughly 250 years from now. Does the engineering deck on a modern ship look anything like this?
--Ian
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
But let's talk about architecture for a moment.
Here is what the headquarters of the government of England looked like 250 years ago:
And here is what the headquarters of the government of England looks like today:
Now, which one of the following two photographs do you suspect is more representative of what the headquarters of the government of England will look like 250 years from now?
--Ian
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Sure, but that's not a fusion reactor on the Enterprise in Abrams' movie, it's a WARP drive. A faster than light, forbidden by the rules of physics, we're making this **** up because we have no clue how you'd actually do it kind of warp drive. The difference between a sailing ship like the USS Constitution and the USS Gerald R. Ford is smaller than the one between the Ford and NCC-1701 USS Enterprise.
For instance, the popular television show "Breaking Bad" was a work of fiction, however the producers decided to depict the main character as a realistic-appearing schoolteacher who drove a realistic-looking minivan, as opposed to a seven-headed alien who could fly.
This would be in contrast to, say, "The Powerpuff Girls", which makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to appear to be realistic.
Or, take The Hunt for Red October. Magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, as portrayed in the movie (silent & undetectable), is a fictitious technology. But the submarine, including its engine room, was portrayed in a way that made it appear to be a realistic object. Unlike, say, the Beatles' Yellow Submarine.
That's the test. Not "does this thing specifically resemble its 21st century counterpart," but rather "does this thing appear to be designed in a realistic manner, such that it could plausibly represent a real, functional object?"
Just because something IS fiction doesn't mean that it can't be made to LOOK realistic.
That's the test. Not "does this thing specifically resemble its 21st century counterpart," but rather "does this thing appear to be designed in a realistic manner, such that it could plausibly represent a real, functional object?"
That's the test. Not "does this thing specifically resemble its 21st century counterpart," but rather "does this thing appear to be designed in a realistic manner, such that it could plausibly represent a real, functional object?"
The USS Constitution looks fundamentally different from a steamship or a modern ship because it relies on wind and sails, rather than using some kind of heat source to boil water and turn a shaft. The steamship looks like the modern ship because they use the same basic principles -- even a nuclear-powered ship is just a nuclear heat source for a steam turbine.
I have no idea how you'd build an Alcubierre drive, but I'm pretty confident that boiling water into steam isn't going to get you there.
The Abrams movie appeals to your sense of aesthetics because it looks like real modern "high tech", instead of the 1980s flashy-light look. That's fine (and I agree that it's a nice change), but it's no more "realistic" than a Victorian-era painting of a Jules Verne moon rocket was at the time that it was painted.
--Ian