Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

[Captain Robert April]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

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.

And just who in the frakking hell is arguing for that!?!

[USS Intrepid]

Okay I'll admit that's belabouring the point, but the simple fact is, a faithful recreation of the original sets simply will not cut it for a multi-million dollar movie.

[Shaw]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

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.

You answered this later in your own post... you are arguing points I am not, so you are essentially debating yourself. I know it would be easier if I argued things the way you want me too, but that is a discussion for someone else willing to debate those points... which isn't me.

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.

There is a problem... I asked about design. And you go on to say...

"Nothing. I never said there was anything *wrong* with it. Nobody did."

But you in fact just did.

Did you mean contemporary construction techniques?

If there is nothing wrong with the design, then it should work. If there is something wrong with the design, point it out.

Simple.

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.

Star Trek is fictional, it can be it's own period piece if it wants to be.

Better production values, better effects, better set construction... but there was nothing wrong with the essence of the original.

And on that we disagree. Those sets, updated, *might* look good for a TV series, but not for a major motion picture.

Why?

You should be able to point to design elements and say this wouldn't work.

Which is really no different from what anyone else has been saying. So why are we arguing about it?

First, you are trying hard to read me into one side or the other on this. I wasn't picking sides, I was asking a question...

What is wrong with the original designs?

And again, I never said there as anything wrong with Jefferies' work, please stop implying otherwise.

There is no implication... you are saying it.

If you want to stop saying it, I'll stop replying to it.

I'd argue we got just that anyway with the Kelvin bridge.

I couldn't see the Kelvin bridge through the lens flares, so I couldn't tell one way or the other.

__________________________________

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Please don't presume to know my thought processes.

I was asking... you could haven given an answer that would help, but you had said

"I just don't know how to reply to this."

And that didn't give me much to work with.

But this does...

Given the smoothness of the surface, its polish, and the look of the reflections, the helm and navigation console, for example, looks like wood painted black to me. Unpainted molded colored plastic is often not as smooth and hardly reflects at all. Unpainted metal surfaces might be that smooth, but they produce sharper reflections. Sure, I don't know what it is made of based on appearances alone, but there are plenty of things in my everyday experience that this does look exactly like, and those things are all wood painted black.

And before you say, but it could be painted plastic or painted metal, I have to ask why would it be painted at all? Paint will chip, and a starship should not allow even the possibility of chipped paint on the surface of its consoles. If color is a feature then it should be the alloy or plastic itself that has the color, and that's my expectation.

And anyway, I wouldn't expect console surfaces to be pure metal. I imagine plastic would make a better insulator. Goodness knows how often the crew gets shocked. All this means that the consoles appear too smooth in the TOS sets.

Wow... you can see too smooth on screen and call that wood? I have plastic items around me that reflect as much... are they wood (in your experience)?

Well, the consoles in The Cage were intended to look like metal, but were painted black later to make them feel like acrylic surfaces.

It hasn't been my experience to associate metal, plastic or acrylic with wood... but to each their own.

There are many other examples worth discussing, but not in what feels like a highly adversarial climate.

I was just curious how the designs made things wood. I know the construction was of mainly wood, but I was asking about the designs. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot... but I was also trying not to be left with having to presume to know your thought processes.

Of course a real adversarial climate would include pejoratives like calling people hard core fans... fortunately we haven't had to worry about such things in this thread.

__________________________________

Dennis wrote:

---

It's not even a matter of "thought processes." It looks like wood...because it looks like wood. More precisely, examined in HD most of the TOS sets either have visible wood grain or are finished in the kind of matte interior wall paints that are hard to mistake for anything else and which betray all kinds of imperfections and seams in the material surface.

I'm guessing that some people don't see this because they choose not to, just as they choose to imagine some possible "control interface" logic to backlit plastic cubes placed in arcs and crosses that are duplicated from "station" to "station" and set to set.

I haven't read every post, but maybe you could point out an example of someone choosing not to see those aspects.

Obviously there must be someone who did that or you wouldn't have brought it up... right?

[USS Intrepid]

I'm sorry, but how is calling someone a hard core fan a pejorative? I happen to *be* a hard core fan, so maybe I just don't see where the insult lies. Regardless, my apologies if you read some sort of insult into that, it was certainly not my intention.

Somewhere along the line I've clearly picked you up wrong. I was under the impression that you were arguing for recreations of the original 60s sets. If that isn't the case, then I apologise for the misunderstanding (which I suspect can be traced back to my use of *designs* when I should have said *sets*). To that end, I concede your point; I don't disagree that an updating of those designs could work, but they would have to be far more elaborate, far more polished and far more 'real' to look at (by modern standards) than the version we got in the 60s.

I will say again, though. Whatever is produced needs to look good enough that its intended audience will suspend belief. Could that be done with the existing designs? Possibly. The layout and shapes are fine (to my eye), but I think you'd need to seriously overhaul the finish, the design of the consoles and control surfaces to come up with something convincing for a modern audience.

I am not saying there is *anything* wrong with Jefferies' designs. Perhaps I was not precise enough in my wording, but all I was saying was that I did not believe they would work *as seen in the original series* for a modern audience of a major motion picture. I am not implying that they are wrong, as much as you keep suggesting otherwise, just that the sets as seen in the original series, are a product of their time, same as the design ethos of the Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

Perhaps you would kind enough to explain how you would suggest the original *designs* (not the sets) be utilised, and how you would rework them for a modern audience.

[Captain Robert April]

More detail, modern materials, the sort of thing where if they reduced the resolution, it would look at home alongside the TOS sets.

[Potemkin_Prod]

So Maurice, how's that edit coming along?

[Shaw]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

Perhaps you would kind enough to explain how you would suggest the original *designs* (not the sets) be utilised, and how you would rework them for a modern audience.

Being kind goes both ways... I'm always will to share ideas and have an honest discussion with those willing to do the same.

[CorporalCaptain]

It's oh-so-freaking ironic.

[Gep Malakai]

Yeah. Wow. Who can disagree with that? All those flat, featureless surfaces and identical unmarked buttons. That is so the look of an expensive, successful modern blockbuster.

[Shaw]

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

Yeah. Wow. Who can disagree with that? All those flat, featureless surfaces and identical unmarked buttons. That is so the look of an expensive, successful modern blockbuster.

Well, we wouldn't want you fumbling around trying (unsuccessfully) to push buttons.

[USS Intrepid]

Shaw wrote:

---

I thought that I had...

... I don't recall where I saw his work off hand, but I was so taken with it that I saved a shot of his mock-up.

Hmm, I must have missed that. Nice, but it still doesn't look like a modern, $150 million movie set to me. And I doubt it would to anyone other than a hard core fan (and no, that's still not a pejorative in case you're wondering).

Shaw wrote:

---

But yeah, I don't think that the new crew would be out of place on the old bridge either. And I tried to illustrate that point back in 2008 when I put this together.

So in fact, despite your comment to the contrary, you do essentially want the exact same sets. Ah, you had me for a minute. So much for 'arguing with myself'.

What looked futuristic to most people 40 odd years ago, is simply not the same today. To expect a modern audience to accept it as such is unreasonable.

Your mileage, clearly, may vary.

[Shaw]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

So in fact, despite your comment to the contrary, you do essentially want the exact same sets. Ah, you had me for a minute. So much for 'arguing with myself'.

Actually I thought I was sharing something put together long before STXI came out with a friend... but if you want to use it in an attempt to score points, then I'll avoid being as candid and sharing with you in the future.

[USS Intrepid]

Nope, not trying to score points at all. I think it's a fair observation.

I'll grant you this. I don't think it can be absolutely proven that those sets *couldn't* work, unless someone wanted to put their money where their mouth is. Alas, I don't think you'll find a single studio willing to make that gamble. Yes, that's a shame. As I've said already, *I'd pay to see it*, but I've yet to see anything that convinces me it'd be financially viable.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

As I've said already, *I'd pay to see it*...

You know what...I'm not sure I would at this point. I got eighty hours of it on DVD, not to mention a couple of Mirror Universe episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise.

[USS Intrepid]

Oh I'd definitely pay to see it. Heck, I'd pay to see Exeter, or Farragut, or Phase II on a big screen. I never tire of seeing good stories in that setting. But then, I'm a fan.