posted
Thought I'd make a new thread about this book, now that it's out.
Now, before I write any more, I'd just like to state that I sincerely hope a Pocket Books editor will be perusing these forums and reading this. Probably not, but I'm not going to create an account over at TrekBBS just so I can talk about this book knowing that the editors do read the posts there. I'd probably get kicked out anyway for speaking my mind.
Anyway, I got a chance yesterday to peruse the book at my local Barnes & Noble. And I can truthfully say...that the book is complete and utter crap. And here's why:
1. Unless there was a separate printing I just didn't see, the book is in hardcover only. So you're paying even more for a book that's complete and utter crap.
2. The book is way smaller and thinner than I thought it would be, so every picture in the book is cut off at all angles. And only half the book is pictures, because each left-hand page is just white with two or three sentences vaguely describing the scene. And I mean vaguely.
3. I was under the impression that this book was supposed to have five-view diagrams of all the CGI models from the show. I don't know where I got that impression, but it was a logical one, don't you all agree? Well, it's anything but. This book is made up of about 50% photos from past calendars that we've all seen already, about 40% photos of the Enterprise-D and the NX-01 (yawn) and about 10% new stuff. (and when I say new, I mean new paintings of old ships that, again, we've seen a million times before. Can't these artists get it straight that we're sick & tired of seeing Excelsiors, Mirandas, and Klingon Birds-of-Prey? Come up with something new, goddamnit!) The only "new" ship in the entire book is the "Altair," the Ent-J-style ship from this year's calendar. And speaking of the Enterprise-J, guess what? The one picture of it in the book is the same picture from the 2005 calendar...the one with the deflector in front of the saucer. Why the fuck did DD feel he had to "redesign" the ship when his new version didn't even appear in the book?
4. There is one good thing about this book, though - the back cover. You see all kinds of alien ships from ENT (including the never-used Klingon ship from "Unexpected"), that so far haven't been seen well in printed medium. But none of these ships are in the book! Why the fuck not???
The people over at TrekBBS may be a bunch of ass-kissers, but when see a product as shitty as this, from a show that I love, I get cranky, and have every right to. No, I'm not an artist or CG designer, but that doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is, this book sucks. Don't waste your money on it.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I gave up on buying anything from Pocket Books after the complete joke that was Starship Spotter (with the sole exception of Star Charts because I had some good recommendations). The simple fact is that Pocket Books, like the rest of the Star Trek franchise, has become dedicated to churning out regurgitated crap with some random new shit sprinkled in that's not worth the price you pay for it. (Starship Spotter was ⅓ pretty pictures, ⅓ useless wireframe crap, and ⅓ technobabble bullshit that Alex Rosenzweig pulled out of his ass.)
So while I had some hopes, I've got no interest in any of this stuff any more. Which is really too bad, because there's so much potential for new creativity. *cough*UNSEENFRONTIERS*cough*
Though if "Ships of the Line" can sell, maybe there's a chance for a Starfleet Museum mass market book or something...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I already said most of that stuff in other forum but I agree with you. I really hope that one day they'll make a Trek starship guidebook in the style of the Star Wars "Essential Guides" or "Incredible Cross Sections". But alas, that will probably never happen or if it does it'll probably be crap(Starship Spotter).
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey, Dukhat? Go to the Star Trek forum at Simon & Schuster. Marco Palmieri is the moderator and actively participates in most serious discussions. Tell him directly.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Hey, Dukhat? Go to the Star Trek forum at Simon & Schuster. Marco Palmieri is the moderator and actively participates in most serious discussions. Tell him directly.
Sure, I could do that...but why bother? So that I can have a bunch of ass-kissing retards tell me how wrong I am to criticize such a "top-notch piece of work" such as this? Or, at the least have MP say something to the effect of "Sorry you didn't like the book. We at Pocket Books strive to please everyone, but realize that we can't always do that" while ignoring the fine points of just why I didn't like the book.
Anyway, I don't like posting stuff like this on any other boards but this one, because you guys will most likely understand where I'm coming from (or at least give constructive criticism if you don't agree with me without resorting to childish behavior), whereas I can't possibly have a coherent argument with the 1.2 million people who post at a place like TrekBBS.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
In any event, someone seems to have posted a differing vewpoint. I can only imagine the jizz encrustation on the pages.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
It's not a geek book, after all. I was in the bookstore today and in the photo art section are dozens of books in exactly that format, on a multitude of different subjects. Now there's one like them with pictures of starships. Yippee!
Well, Mark Nguyen, that just proves the long-held hypothesis that you're certifiably nuts.
And I read your post over there, Jonah. I commend you for your tact, & I'm curious to see if MP responds in exactly the way I think he will.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I got mine on sale... $9 due to Tower Records going out of business. I do wish at least it were bigger with more photos since I've never bothered to buy the calendars in the first place. I remember the hard bound edition of the Art of Star Trek book... why the hell wasn't it as large as that one at least?
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
It's not entirely bad. But it could have been a lot better.
Bad: - The 16:9-widescreen-cutting-off-the-edges-format is horrible (but maybe that's just me because I've seen the originals hanging on my wall). At least they didn't spread the image over two pages like they did in Starship Spotter where a big portion of the image wasn't even visible. - Too many old images. Why didn't they recycle the "unseen frontier" stuff? I only hope this was done to squeeze the budget. If it doesn't sell, they didn't loose that much. If it does, we might get another one with a bigger budget ( = more new images). The average customer doesn't even know that this is stuff from the calendars. - Recycled images from the movies. Check out the E-E section. They didn't even try to come up with *new* (=not seen on TV) renderings. Why didn't they use some model shots then (That old DS9-calendar-centerfold for example)? Or more paintings? - As mentioned above, why did they use all those beautiful models for the cover (Ambassador, Daedalus, Akira, all those alien ships: where the hell are they?) and just give us a shitload of hero-ships we've seen a thousand times before?
Good: - Some new images of good quality. (Is that really *good*? Maybe I have low standards when it comes to Trek publications, but shouldn't we *expect* new stuff in a new book?) - Number of pages vs. price tag (I've seen books like this for a lot more, and this is the average price of the SotL-calendar) - The design. I assume I'm the only one who thinks so but I kinda like the white pages. Feels like a real art-book. But more text would have been better (and maybe they should have asked a real author and not the artists to write them).
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, this was ALWAYS supposed to be a "best of the SOTL calendar" book, done on the cheap, so I don't know where so many people are getting that it should have been a brand-new tome of starship beauty. This is why almost all the images are pre-existing... But now, they're in a renewable product for the main Pocket catlogue; you can't get the older calendars anymore, which means nothing to most of us, but everything to the majority of folks who couldn't get it the first time.
I'm sure that they didn't use Mojo's awesome work he did on Unseen Fronter because they'd have to pay him for it, versus the relative pittance for the re-use of existing stuff in this one (if any at all). Note that Mojo himself has used ILM pics in his calendars, mostly because they ARE damn beautiful shots (I recall him saying that the shot of thecrashed E-D saucer was particularly cool to him, so he got ILM's permission to use it). The E-E underside isn't particulalry exciting IMO, but does show a lot of the detail int eh studio model.
As for the cropping, I'm betting it was done for artistic purposes. Note that a lot of the images are more "framed" for the size and shape of the book, placing emphasis on looking at a specific area of the image than the whole thing. Most photographers do this in some respect anyway, so I'm not TOO suprised they did it like this. If they'd been allowed to do a full-size "coffee table" book like UF was supposed to be, I'd bet that most of the pictures would have been displayed in their full glory. For the book's size, we're allowed the maintenance of the resolution possible by cropping, versus making some features too small to truly appreciate.
And IMO I like having the artists write the captions in the minimalist format shown. They add a personal touch to the artistic choices behind each picture, be it practical or inspirational (and not altogether sensible sometimes, in terms of Star Trek canon). Besides, with Starship Spotter we had Alex Rosenzweig's text to go along with it, which was not well received (Alex is very biased to the late-70s / early 80s fandom work, and it shows).
My conclusion is to take it for what it is and means to do - give folks who can't get the old calendars something relatively cool to look at, at the lower price point. Some new materials hook the completist fans (like myself) and spice things up for other groups too. In this (mostly business oriented) sense, the book works.
posted
So...I bought the book just now. I passed it by several times on the shelf- I was expecting something much larger.
I like it- it's a lot better than I'd expected and, while some images suffer badly from thoughtless cropping (particularly one shot of DS9 wherein the motherfucking Reliant is in frame but the Defiant is cut off!), but it's a nice presentation.
The only truly glaring thing I noticed right off are the "movie shots"- I could have done without those. Also, there is a scene of a MIranda class starship crashing through the atmosphere of some ice planet and it's lifeboats are deployed- There is easily more than 50 sovvie-style lifeboats in that scene! What the fuck!?! That's (probably) more than a Soverign class holds!
I find little to gripe about with tyhe book overall- the images that have errors were all from previous calanders (the motherfucking Reliant docked at DS9, for fucks sake!) and for the money, this book offers more great imagry than anything we've ever had.
But it's no Unseen Frontier either. Maybe this will re-kindle intrest in that worthy endeavour?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I count 92 pods on Sovereign's dorsal saucer surface alone.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
