RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,328
Posts: 5,353,066
Members: 24,618
Currently online: 701
Newest member: jmacenulty

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Productions

Fan Productions Creating our own Trek canon!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 11 2011, 09:41 PM   #1096
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

The fan film set has not been built that wouldn't be laughed off of the big screen, sorry - no matter how cool the retro graphics are.

Fans already buy into TOS, so of course they'll be pleased if the old designs are rendered well. Trek fans are not anyone's target audience at the multiplex, so the assessment that these things "wouldn't stand up" is the correct one.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 11 2011, 09:57 PM   #1097
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Dennis wrote: View Post
The fan film set has not been built that wouldn't be laughed off of the big screen, sorry - no matter how cool the retro graphics are.
My point was: these fan films are very impressive with little to no money. A big time director with a $150 million dollar budget could make those 60's designs shine.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 11 2011, 11:23 PM   #1098
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Dennis wrote: View Post
The fan film set has not been built that wouldn't be laughed off of the big screen, sorry - no matter how cool the retro graphics are.

Fans already buy into TOS, so of course they'll be pleased if the old designs are rendered well. Trek fans are not anyone's target audience at the multiplex, so the assessment that these things "wouldn't stand up" is the correct one.
In your not so humble opinion, which, accompanied by a quarter, won't get a lousy cup of coffee.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 02:34 AM   #1099
T'Bonz
Romulan Curmudgeon
 
T'Bonz's Avatar
 
Location: Across the Neutral Zone
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Don't get personal, eh.
__________________
Live long and suffer! - Ancient Romulan greeting.

Romulans aren't paranoid. We're merely proactively cautious.
T'Bonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 05:18 AM   #1100
Expo67
Captain
 
Location: Lexington, Kentucky
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
The fan film set has not been built that wouldn't be laughed off of the big screen, sorry - no matter how cool the retro graphics are.

Fans already buy into TOS, so of course they'll be pleased if the old designs are rendered well. Trek fans are not anyone's target audience at the multiplex, so the assessment that these things "wouldn't stand up" is the correct one.
In your not so humble opinion, which, accompanied by a quarter, won't get a lousy cup of coffee.

Captain Robert April, I would like to quote the following.

"My compliments to you, sir."
- Doctor John H. Holliday to U.S. Marshal Bat Masterson
Expo67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 05:28 AM   #1101
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Tallguy wrote: View Post
DS9Sega wrote: View Post
Potemkin_Prod wrote: View Post
Very nice graphics there, Maurice. More of your work?
Yeah, I designed most of Cutty's station. Since I used to do video game design, including starship controls for some space combat simulations, I designed them to actually be functional.
Huzzah! I LOVED that game!

Those displays look like they work AND they look like TOS. Nicely done.
What? You actually played one of those games?!
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 09:31 AM   #1102
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

BillJ wrote: View Post
A big time director with a $150 million dollar budget could make those 60's designs shine.
How?

If the designs are altered even one iota, then to the purist they are no longer the 60's designs. Just for starters, if you are going to make them look "more realistic", in the sense of looking like they are made out of metal and space-age plastic, or plasteel, or whatever, instead of painted wood, then they are really no longer the 60's designs. Having seen remastered The Menagerie on the big screen, I can tell you that when seen on the big screen, the TOS sets look like they were made out of wood.

At best, movie versions of the TOS sets must be a revisionist or updated take on the 60's designs. People with film experience please help me out here, as I believe that right here is where the production designer would run into a fundamental quandary. The question is how much do the designs get revised. Do you fix the fact that not all of the controls are, shall we say, practical or functional? Don't you think that on the bridge more informative and especially dynamic graphics should be present in at least some of the panels of blinking and flashing lights, besides and including the engineering station? Cutty's station is a marvelous example of elaboration because it addresses the issue of how the original set might have looked, were that bridge station ever essential to the series for more than one season. But what about the functionality of the other stations. We're all used to computers now. Back in the 60's that was not so, and the public didn't really have any expectations of how a computer interface might look. That is to say, besides the fact that it might have beeping and flashing things. This is what's wrong with Spock's station. You can't just throw a few isolated switches to do some esoteric function any more and expect the audience not to laugh. People know you have to at least look like you are navigating a menu hierarchy or pressing dedicated function keys within a reasonably large array of them. What you have to have is something more like TMP. Keypads, with many keys. Dynamic monitors. The big budget view of TOS is TMP. Instead of retconning, they just chose to say they were refitting the Enterprise.

Now, one could argue that "TMP did it wrong". That represents a much more fair question, in that at least the issue is now more reasonable. If that's what you think, then help me out here, but I assume that what you want is the feeling that the cast projected in Galaxy Quest, when they all first saw the bridge of the real Protector built by the Thermians. In other words, you would want it to look like "a real version of the TV show". And, you are saying that TMP didn't give you that feeling. (Goodness knows it did for me.) Yes? Well then, gee, I don't know. That's why I said it's a production design quandary in the first place. Those with film experience here might be able to address this issue. If they can, I'd like to know what they think about this.

For the record, goodness also knows that the U.S.S. Kelvin sequence in JJTrek gave me the cold shivers of OMFG this is really how The Very Freakin' Cage would look for real.

Thanks.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 08:09 PM   #1103
USS Intrepid
Commodore
 
USS Intrepid's Avatar
 
Location: Dundee, Scotland, UK
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Tell you what, when one of you have $150 million to spend on that movie that's a *perfect* recreation of the original series, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. I promise to throw you a few quarters when you're bankrupt and living rough on the streets.

I love the original as much as the rest of you, but really, I've never understood how anyone can believe those sets would cut it today in a multi-million dollar movie. I'd love to see someone prove me wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
__________________
Star Trek: Intrepid
USS Intrepid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12 2011, 11:09 PM   #1104
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
If the designs are altered even one iota, then to the purist they are no longer the 60's designs. Just for starters, if you are going to make them look "more realistic", in the sense of looking like they are made out of metal and space-age plastic, or plasteel, or whatever, instead of painted wood, then they are really no longer the 60's designs.
How?

I mean, if you made the set elements out of solid gold (replicating every curve), but painted them the same way they were originally painted, does that make them wood?

I'm unable to follow how you see the original designs performing this form of alchemy.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 03:11 AM   #1105
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
If the designs are altered even one iota, then to the purist they are no longer the 60's designs. Just for starters, if you are going to make them look "more realistic", in the sense of looking like they are made out of metal and space-age plastic, or plasteel, or whatever, instead of painted wood, then they are really no longer the 60's designs. Having seen remastered The Menagerie on the big screen, I can tell you that when seen on the big screen, the TOS sets look like they were made out of wood.
Absolutely Right(TM).

The JJTrek producers looked at a set design that was closer to the original. Abrams concluded that it looked "preposterous and small" which is about right.

They did throw the TOS fans a bone with the Kelvin bridge, which is actually a design I prefer not only to the Enterprise bridge in this film but to just about all the bridges designed for Trek movies and shows prior to this (but after the TOS bridge). As it is the Kelvin bridge is more than a bit bigger than the TOS bridge.

The closest thing to a successful update of the TOS bridge itself was the bridge as seen in ST 5 (not the awful rearrangement and nonsense of ST 6). I liked that one, but it's still dated now, and I'm certainly glad that Chambers and company threw all of that out and started over. As it is, the JJPrise bridge draws most of its inspiration from Jefferies' original design, with very little taken from the various elaborations that have been done since.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 03:51 AM   #1106
Expo67
Captain
 
Location: Lexington, Kentucky
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

What's so bad about the Enterprise bridge in Star Trek VI? It looked fine to me.
Expo67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 04:05 AM   #1107
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Dennis wrote: View Post
... As it is the Kelvin bridge is more than a bit bigger than the TOS bridge.
How can you tell through all the lens flares?

The Kelvin bridge was a dark room behind lens flares, the Enterprise bridge was a bright room behind lens flares. You can't really see much clearly on either set in the movie, so their design (good, bad or neutral) was a waste.

With enough lens flares, they could have been filming on the bridge set made for ENT's Defiant and no one would have been the wiser for it.


But did you want to make this a thread about STXI... or can we return to Exeter? After all, there is a whole section of this board devoted to STXI if you want to talk about it, so there isn't a good reason to do it here.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 02:10 PM   #1108
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Shaw wrote: View Post
I mean, if you made the set elements out of solid gold (replicating every curve), but painted them the same way they were originally painted, does that make them wood?
Look at the floor of the TOS bridge and the floor of the TMP bridge.

By the way, we were discussing how to film TOS era Trek in the modern age, which relates to Exeter art design, TYVM.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 05:11 PM   #1109
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

I see one big fallacy being tossed around, namely that the materials used somehow equals the design, which is a load of crap big enough to fertilize the Sinai. And frankly, anyone who would complain that a TOS bridge doesn't look like it was made of plywood (assuming such a troglodyte actually exists), 1) is in serious need of professional counseling, since this person is clearly a menace to himself and others, and 2) is such an infinitesimal minority that it shouldn't even merit a mention in an interoffice memo, let alone in the actual production process.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13 2011, 05:23 PM   #1110
USS Intrepid
Commodore
 
USS Intrepid's Avatar
 
Location: Dundee, Scotland, UK
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

Much like the suggestion that the original bridge would work in a £150 million blockbuster. It simply wouldn't (except for a very small minority of the viewing audience). I can see the headlines now.

Paramount's 150 million dollar plywood flagship sinks without a trace.

Yeah it's trite, but like I said up thread, if anyone has $150 million they want to invest, be my guest. I'd certainly pay to see it, but then I'm in that small minority.
__________________
Star Trek: Intrepid
USS Intrepid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.