The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

A fascinating choice of words, "puerile". Not much different from "foolish," above. And just as logically absurd. This is like saying a thief that is accused of stealing didn't steal, he just appropriated for his own use. A distinction without a difference. "Fit his vision?" He has a choice in picking a vision. He chose the vision he did... because he could. His team "wants to make Trek in their own image", to quote the other guy, perhaps because he thinks it enhances the likelihood of success, or because he wants to stamp this cultural icon with his own brand. In the one case, it's because he can, and in the other it's because he feels he must.

Let's look at that last possibility. To be fair, I think it is a combination of the two, and feel his artistic vision is being driven by a misguided belief that designs that have been around for so long are "dated" -- a belief well represented in this thread by people who when pushed to provide a basis for their belief, rest on the argument that the opposing belief is "puerile" or "foolish". Of course, since Matt Jefferies was projecting what a starship might look like, and since a starship has never been contemplated beyond the barest speculations, there is no basis upon which to criticize the Jefferies design. None at all. To say it doesn't look like the ISS or other modern aerospace designs is nonsensical. It didn't look like anything from its own time, either. It's just as relevant to say it doesn't look like a meatloaf.

No... the only reason to believe this design is commercially untenable -- this iconic design, recognized worldwide and enshrined with other objects of cultural significance in the Smithsonian, is because he wants to change it. Underneath it all, that's got to be driving it. It's just that "he wants to put his stamp on it," because he can do it, and I guess that's okay. But let's call it what it is, and debate the motive, and not the design.

 

No, you're not. I've had training (though I wish I'd had more, in retrospect) and I'm currently working on my portfolio.

It makes perfect sense for both. If nothing else, it makes more sense with CGI, at least the way I do it. I, of course, am still an amateur (at least, compared to where I want to be), but I'd build a model, and then build cutouts separately and composite them on top, unless the model's specifically built to be a 'construction' or 'damaged', to the point where most of the ship is uncovered.

The way I view it, if you already have a high-detail model, it makes no sense to build one just as detailed (or modify it, which can be a task just as daunting as building a new one, if not more so) just because you're going to be showing some of the guts. What I'd do is build mostly a box, with one side of said box conforming to the hull at the location that I want the cutout. I'd put a hole in the conforming side that corresponds with the shape that I want cutout, and then put the guts inside that. The rest of the box, except for the hole's sides and the guts would be a special 'matte/shadow' material (from 3ds Max, and also where the "matte" that confused you later on came from) which basically blocks anything behind it for compositing purposes, basically setting the alpha to 0 in the render except for what it doesn't cover (I can show you a picture of what I'm working on if that doesn't make any sense). That way, except for the sides of the hole and what I have underneath, you see nothing of it when I render.

I'd put the hole model and the master model in the same scene, for consistency of lighting and camera motion, but, depending on the model program I'm using, in different render layers or whatever (how it's done depends on the program; personally, I find Maya's render layers to be far more elegant than 3ds Max's scene states, but they both do the same thing). Then, in After Effects or Combustion, depending on my mood and what I need, I put the render (well, renders; I'd do several passes of each, depending on the scene) of the hole on top of the render of the ship, with none the wiser. In the end, it saves a lot of hassles of playing with the master ship's topography, and IMO, time.

Keep in mind that I'm primarily a lighting and rendering artist, and while I can model and enjoy doing so, I enjoy composing an image, lighting it, rendering, and compositing far more. This way, I use a pre-existing model of the ship, and create a fairly simple model that won't take too much time or hassle to make, and get to the really fun stuff faster, and most people aren't the wiser.

Granted, my method is hardly perfect, but no method is. For one thing, it's rather weak on things like Enterprise's Minefield and Dead Stop, when you have to see stuff through the bits that are being composited on top of, but that's hardly insurmountable. But there, it'd likely be easier to just model at least the hull damage into the hull. But my method allows for more control over each construction element in post (when, in my experience, it's easier and less-time-consuming to modify things like color, and more controlled to boot).

My point was, mostly, that this model could be the final close-up model of the Enterprise (although I honestly doubt it), with the construction cutouts simply composited on top of it. Or, it could be a model built up specifically for this trailer. More likely, it's a bit of both. ILM's good enough that I'm not place any bets on it.

 

For anyone attacking JJ for changing the "look" of the enterprise, I have a question.


Where you there in 1979, and if so did you attack Roddenberry or Wise for changing the "look" of the enterprise?

 

^ "Just because he can" is a loaded phrase. It basically means, "with no thought".

Based on what JJ and crew have said, it seems to me there has been a great deal of thought put into this production. As far as I know, JJ hasn't said much specifically about the new E design (I can't wait for the inevitable feature in Cinefex), so I think it premature to make assumptions about his motives in that regard.

Now certainly a lot of people take issue with the direction the film is going, and that's fine. Some people are excited about seeing a new E, some want nothing less than the NASM model up there on the big screen. Again, fine.

But to me, hand-waving it all away with a "oh, he's changing it just because he can" is slighting what is probably a very important and meaningful project to a whole lot of artists, writers, actors and producers.

 

I'm not aware of a lot of people "attacking J.J." over this. I am aware of people not being happy with the idea. That's NOT the same thing.

Furthermore, the 1979 redesign was a REFIT. I.E, there was an EXPLANATION for why the ship was supposed to look different... they'd just spent years redesigning and refitting the Enterprise, to the point where it was an almost entirely new Enterprise. For all practical purposes, it wasn't the same ship anymore.

That explains ANY differences we saw.

I liked the idea that the ship was "updated." I missed the nacelle cap effect, though, and didn't care for the glowing deflector all that much. Otherwise, though, I thought it was fantastic, and it fit into my own personal "Trek universe" perfectly well. (The uniforms bugged the hell out of me, but the ship design didn't... go figure.)

What's being discussed NOW is a totally different thing, though. It's not talking about going to a time we haven't seen and showing us things we've never seen before. It's talking about going to a time we've already been to, and telling us that it didn't "really" look like we remember it looking like.

Not remotely the same thing. Yes, both represent artists coming up with their own takes on the concept... in THAT way it's the same. But there's a huge difference, and that difference is "does it fit with what's come before" or "does it contradict what's come before?"

 

I a lready answered this question in my post from the previous page. I was 9 in 1979 and I loved the re-fit, thought it was the most beautiful spaceship I'd ever seen. (I've since gone back to the original, though the re-fit is a maddeningly close second.)

1979, though, is not 2008, and what was novel then is just another Trek variant now. That's why I say go back to the original.

 

Nope. It means what it means. And no more.

Of course thought has been put into it. That has nothing to do with why that thought was put into it. As I pointed out above, the original design isn't dated compared to modern space technology, or compared to contemporary speculations on starship design. It has powerful marketing value because of its longstanding recognizability. The only thing you can say about this new design is it's new in order to be new. "This isn't your grandpa's Enterprise," was what one of the new Trek "supreme court" said, or something to that effect. But why? Hell, even James Bond used his 1964 Aston Martin in the reboot Casino Royale.

Maybe the new design will serve an important story point. I sincerely hope so. Maybe they'll screw with the entire Star Trek universe and then leave everybody hanging over the question of whether it will be straightened out in the next movie.

If it's not some reason like this, there's no reason for it that I can think of other than ego satisfaction.

 

I still think the main reasons for the redesign, if you can call it that, is two fold...

One, to produce a finished ship more visually appealing for the big screen. And to, so that the exterior fits the interior sets designed for the production.

I don't think it's some evil plot by the producers to piss on the first 01. Nor do I think it's being done for the sake of just doing it.


Would it be nice to see the 01 in her tos glory, sure. But were we, as trek fans, would be amazed at the image of it, 90% of the people who will go see it will ask, why is the thing so smooth? where is the details? This thing looks like it's out of a pixar movie...


People have reached a point where the details have to be insane for them to accept it as, what I've come to call "fantasy real". for them to believe that it's something that could be made in the future. The simplicity and elegance of the 01 from tos wouldn't seem real or believable to them.

 

I feel that I didn't explain myself very well earlier. I'm not very verbally oriented (more visually, naturally ), so I'll provide an image to explain myself. Well, a video.

Please note that this requires DivX.


The first clip is the whole thing together, with a nice little hole punched in it...well, some panels cut out, whatever. There's some sort of structural stuff as a top layer, and a few pipes running underneath.

The second clip is the ship without the hole cut out. Same scene, no modifications to the ship.

The third is what the 'hole' object looks like. Though, after the fact, I realized a slightly easier way that I could have accomplished some of what I was going for in the construction of it...but that's the way of things, of course.

The fourth clip is what the hole looks like with everything that I want showing showing and everything else with a "matte/shadow" material, which basically means that wherever you see it, it shows the background image, no matter what's behind it, unless a shadow lands on it.

I hope this clears up my previous post!

 

One of the biggest flaws I find in recent examples of reboots is the use of franchises like Superman, Spider-man and James Bond. Superman was originally a character from the 1930s, Spider-man was a character from the 1960s, and Bond was a character from the 1950s. In all these cases, the central characters defy aging, and always had their stories set in contemporary settings.

Peter Parker, for example, was in high school when the Spider-man comics got started in the 1960s... and as of today, the character is in his mid to late 20s in current comic books, yet they take place in a world that mirrors ours of today. That is just how those things work, it is to be expected.

Star Trek takes place in a specific time period, and the characters are linked to that period. Star Trek isn't in anyway linked to our period, nor should it be. The styles of TOS hardly reflected the styles of the 1960s... infact, TOS redefined many things in the 60s and 70s. TOS isn't a reflection of the past, our past (and present) was greatly effected by TOS.

For those who think that space designs of the 1960s are out of date, I strongly suggest that you take a look at what NASA will be using as a replacement for the Space Shuttles in the near future.

As for other examples of reboots, Battlestar Galactica wasn't all that great when it came out originally. It was quickly pushed onto the public to take advantage of Star Wars, and they didn't even have time to come up with original story ideas. So in reality, it wasn't like there was a lot of material from the original series to work with anyways, so NuBSG shouldn't have felt restricted by the old one.

But if people want a rebooted Star Trek, why not just go with where Roddenberry most likely got many of his ideas anyways... Forbidden Planet! It has every thing that is great about Trek without the baggage of being Trek, and no one has revisited it in 50 years!

In the past artist reused old canvases because they were expensive. But usually they were a little discriminating in which old canvases they used. I, for one, am thankful that paintings like the Mona Lisa weren't painted over by later artist in a rush to show their own talents... I hope that artist of today have the same foresight and respect.

I love that car!

I am a big fan of 1950s and 1960s Porsches, but there are a few cars by other makers that will catch my eye when they make an appearance... the 1964 Aston Martin is absolutely one of them!

 

Since we're not going to agree on this point I see no sense continuing this line of discussion. Carry on.

 

Not using a design closer to the 60's version has nothing to do with the original looking outdated. I mean, the original ship had a series of smaller & smaller hull bumps to represent the upper saucer, the 'underbridge' and the bridge itself. In the new design they also have a series of hull-bump shapes...except they changed their size and shape.

I assure you, Abrams is not going: "Our hull bumps are way more '2008' than those outdated '1967' hull bumps! Bravo, design team!"

 

Exactly.

 

"I'd hazard to say most of the re-design cheerleaders are fans of several series, perhaps having come to Star Trek from the 24th century."

Holytomato,

Class of '72

Nice try. These Brats don't know anything tm.

"If it's not some reason like this, there's no reason for it that I can think of other than ego satisfaction."

So, TMP, TWOK, and TNG are Ego stroking tm?

From Violation of Canon tm to These Brats don't know anything tm to Ego Stroking tm.

 

Rottentomato™ DumbPost™ score.... 8.8/10

 

Nice putting words in my mouth. Besides, I said "most." Some of you cheerleaders just lack taste.

 

I should probably clarify.
I don't think the demise of Enterprise is solely on the shoulders of fans. Of course it's not. the franchise in it's current incarnation had played out. There was and still is nothing more to do. But it seems to me, the constant campaigning against the show by some hardcore fans certainly didn't help. I watched every episode of it's run and yes, there were problems. The second season was pretty much horrible across the board. But I believe it was hitting it's stride by season 4. I do not think it should have continued tho. The current franchise needed to end. the universe had become so convoluted and there was so much established continuity that creating new adventures in that universe became problematic. It was then it became clear to me that a reboot of some kind was in order.
My hypothesis is that this movie will be a soft reboot, probably forming a divergent timeline, to explain the differences in the Big E and the universe itself. Everything we know will still have happened, but this frees up the universe to go in new directions with the same characters. It's risky for fans but could have mass appeal.
I have read that this "alternate timeline" Enterprise will be more of a warship. Perhaps Spock's trip back in time lands him in this alternate timeline and that's where the action takes place. We'll find out in December.
But as this topic is about the E, I should probably stop expressing my opinion about the "state of the franchise" and confine my thoughts to the new/old ship.
I was always partial to the more realistic refit E of the movies. Not that I hated the TOS E, I came up with that ship, but the movie E spoke to me more. So if this new ship looks more like that, I have no problem. If you've seen the corridors, that would have been harder to explain away, were it not for this divergent timeline theory. Yeha it looks like a Battlestar corridor, or as my friend said he expected Master Chief to walk around the corner. But that's not a bad thing.
Not all new Trek is good Trek, that much is certain. But if Abrams and co have accomplished nothing else, they have ignited the fire under the ass of the fanbase. That's never a bad thing.

I'll leave you with something my girlfriend, also a Trek fan like me said when I relayed to her this threads contents...
"for fans of something that is supposed to embody infinite diversity in infinite combinations, they sure are unwilling to accept anything new."

I thought it was profound and sorta true

 

I hear this a lot... it's a fairly common refrain. I absolutely disagree with it, though. Since I don't recall ever saying this to YOU, I hope the rest of you will forgive me for repeating myself...

Consider films or TV shows which are, ostensibly, set in the "real world." The real world has FAR MORE "continuity" set up than the Star Trek universe has. Yet I've never heard anyone complaining that the real world is "used up" and you can't come up with any more stories in the real world (or, perhaps I should say, a reasonable facsimile intended to fool the audience into thinking that it's the same world they live in... just want to be clear).

Now, that's ONE PLANET (and for the most part, one COUNTRY, really)...

In the Federation, in TOS times, there are "a thousand worlds, and spreading out." Even ignoring shows taking place in space... that's easily 1000 times the PLANETBOUND STORYTELLING OPPORTUNITIES that we have with our own little planet.

Okay, so there are a dozen ships just like Enterprise in TOS times... that's not the same as saying "there are twelve starships, of any sort, in existence."

The problem isn't that there's "too much continuity" but that the writers grew too ATTACHED to the bits and piece of continuity that they created and became enamored of.

SO... for example... instead of dealing with NX-01 being hijacked by pirates of some other variety... they simply were TOO CLOSE TO THEIR OWN WORK to be able to think of any solution OTHER than "Ferengi."

That's not the fault of "too much continuity." In fact, it's really a violation of continuity (since nobody was supposed to know what Ferengi looked like...) Though it's possible to justify it with some fairly complicated mental gymnastics... the point is that it was a bad storytelling decision.

That's not the fault of "too much continuity." It's the fault of bad, lazy storytelling. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having continuity there doesn't mean you have to address it, often, or even address it at all. Just that you have to attempt to avoid CONTRADICTING IT.

Which, in a whole galaxy's worth of stories, shouldn't be difficult to do, should it be?

 

I don't think the "constant complaining" of the fans made any more difference that similar "constant complaining" about any other aspect of the Franchise does. "Enterprise" held on to almost all of that little core of devoted trekkies - a few million, in the U.S. - throughout its run. At least nine out of ten of the folks who complained on Internet boards about the show watched it pretty faithfully. It was the show's inability to attract or hold anyone other than trekkies that doomed it.

 

Exactly, Cary - I said this during the entire run of ENT. Given the chance, they remake the things that don't need to be remade or redefined, and insist upon using those things that they would do best to avoid. So many opportunities to do something new - and so much 'available space' in which to do it - and yet whenever someone wants to "create a new, fresh vision" of Star Trek, what's the first thing they do? Tell us more about the things we already know - and worse, they tell us we were wrong. And, I hate to say, even the new new vision from Abrams looks a lot like more of the same - "let's go back and retell the story of Kirk and Co., only tell it differently, because it's a 'new, fresh vision.'"

As someone has already posted, the only radical thing they could do at this point would be to stick with the original and tell a new story without changing the old ones. Oddly enough, not one 'visionary' has attempted this, except maybe James Cawley .