View Single Post
Old March 13 2011, 11:18 PM   #1123
USS Intrepid
USS Intrepid's Avatar
Location: Dundee, Scotland, UK
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Shaw wrote: View Post
Demanding of what?
Of something that doesn't look like it was made on a shoestring for a TV budget. Something that looks substantial, and that isn't going to fall over if you lean on it. Really, if you can't get that then there's no pint even debating this.

Shaw wrote: View Post
They don't know what the future is like, and most aspects of the tech should be kept vague.
Which is also completely irrelevant. There isn't a right or wrong 'vision' of the future, but that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Shaw wrote: View Post
Are you arguing that because people saw it 45 years ago that it won't work today? Or are you saying that people who would go see a space movie today are really looking for something more like a video game?
Hardly. I'm saying those sets will not work today because they do not and will not look in any way convincing compared to contemporary designs. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just that they will not sell.

Shaw wrote: View Post
I ask the question earlier... you could answer it now... what is wrong with the curves drawn by Jefferies?
Nothing. I never said there was anything *wrong* with it. Nobody did.

Shaw wrote: View Post
As for what people are willing to watch... 99% of movies don't work from that formula. Are you saying that Pearl Harbor would have been a better movie with nuclear carriers and stealth fighters? Where is all the shiny stuff in the Harry Potter movies? Why didn't they set Sherlock Holmes in a contemporary environment?

These are multi-million dollar movies... and they work.
Which again is completely beside the point. Those are period pieces, of course they should use authentic designs. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Star Trek is not a period piece. It's a work of fiction that needs to look good enough that its intended audience will suspend belief. Expecting anyone other than dedicated fans to take the original sets seriously is just blinkered.

Shaw wrote: View Post
I've never argued that the original sets (as built for the series) should be used... but there is nothing wrong with the original designs. And a multi-million dollar budget could do those designs the justice they deserve.
And on that we disagree. Those sets, updated, *might* look good for a TV series, but not for a major motion picture.

Shaw wrote: View Post
And no, I didn't find Wrath of Khan that compelling a story. To date, no Star Trek film has had a truly compelling story. A compelling Trek story, should be compelling even if it wasn't a Trek story. If the story can't stand on it's own without Trek attached, it isn't truly compelling.
Whether you found TWOK compelling or not isn't the point. It's purely an example.

Shaw wrote: View Post
But yeah, I think it would have done just as well had the original set designs been rebuilt using the technologies of the 1980s. I'm not suggesting keeping the limitations of the 1960's (or a television show)... I'm suggesting using the designer's vision of the future with what we have available today. That might not work for some "purists", but there is nothing that would hurt it with an audience.
Which is really no different from what anyone else has been saying. So why are we arguing about it?

Shaw wrote: View Post
There is nothing wrong with the cross sectional curve shown in that Jefferies drawing... there is nothing that dates or compromises it. And it is functional. Should it be implemented the exact same way today as they did in 1966... of course not. Fan films do because they are catering to the fans... but then again, most fan films are as limited budget wise as TOS originally was.
Most fanfilms are vastly more budget-limited than the original series. And again, I never said there as anything wrong with Jefferies' work, please stop implying otherwise.

Shaw wrote: View Post
So, I'll ask again... looking at the Jefferies drawing (and nothing else from TOS, just the drawing by itself), what is wrong with it that audiences wouldn't accept today?
I'd argue we got just that anyway with the Kelvin bridge.
Star Trek: Intrepid
USS Intrepid is offline   Reply With Quote