Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Nah... meaning "keep the the elements which can or should be replaced, and replace the elements you should keep."

The "Ep1" Yoda LOOKED different, but was created using the same technology.

The "Ep2/3" Yoda looked the same as the original one, but was created using new techniques. Both were puppeteered and voiced by the same guy... but in one case it was a physical "filming model" puppet and in the other it was a composite approach, involving mo-cap of a physical "scanner puppet," combined with the more common "full CGI animation" techniques...

As a result, the Ep2/3 Yoda looked like we expected him to look, moved like we expected him to move, but was a whole lot MORE convincing than the original filming puppet... or the Ep1 puppet.

One of the big problems with "change" is that change doesn't always equal progress. Sometimes the most progressive approach is to realize you're on the wrong road and to turn around and go back the soonest.

 

Well, how about THIS? It's not a "CHANGE"... it's far more closely related to the original comic-book (ie, "source material") costume than EITHER of the above.

 

I like the Tim burton Batmobile better too.

i think batman's costume in the new movie was way too over thought as well. it's not proof of anything.

I also think batman in comics drawn on paper looks cooler than any actual guy in a costume so what does it matter anyway

 

but the thing about the enterprise is i think it was intended to be kind of weird and quirky looking

Like when they redesigned the ship for the Next generation movies and it became this smooth sports car like version of the enterprise, it just wasn't as star trek-like.

 

I don't think the Enterprise needs any real redesign. More details? Sure. After all, this time it's on the big screen. But no matter what they do to it, it's still gonna be a big flying saucer with nacelles and there is a limit to how kwel it can be.

There is nothing wrong with retro designs. The PT used retro designs pretty much exclusively and does anyone whine about that? I sure don't hear it.

So there is no 'need' to heavily alter the look of the Enterprise. If Abrams does so it is his choice, not something he was forced to do.

The '60's Batman was essentially a parody, so that's not really the best example.

 

Saw the Barris Batmobile at a car show once -- absolutely stunning. It was based on the Ford Futura, if I recall, and I thought it took him more than 10 days to create. Many of us kids who watched reruns of the show definitely took it seriously, just as many in the audience took Burton's "Batman" seriously in 1989.

"Star Trek" followed a design philosophy more in line with 1950s movie sci-fi and the pulps of the 20s than, say, "2001's" more realistic (but sterile) sensibility. My parents walked out of that movie in 1968, saying it was not only boring but was like looking at an ad for IBM for 30 minutes. They still couldn't watch it on video 20 years later.

For all of the yakking that goes on here about how fans shouldn't dictate what "Star Trek" looks like or is about, my parents' experience (mirrored by perhaps thousands more that resulted in "2001" being a commercial flop) suggests that sometimes the masses do indeed want something more alive and colorful than what excites the hardcore sci-fi geeks. Say what you will about the original "Star Trek," but it was definitely more alive and colorful than the tedious incarnations that followed.

Is it necessary to keep the design aesthetic of "Star Trek" for what amounts to a prequel? No. But obviously it worked on quite a few people who responded positively to the show. Now that the 1960s mod styles and 1970s counterculture styles are the rage, I'm not sure that the retro sensibility won't work on audiences, assuming Paramount doesn't wait until the fads change to finally release the movie. It is getting into the prequel game awfully late. Chances are the people who will find the look un-hip are, well, nerds, who never seem to understand fashion, and oldsters still cling to the 1980s sensibility of the show with the British bald guy.

 

With all do respect, you seem to know very little of spacecraft design. The original looked both elegant and functional, which is difficult to pull off.

 

In my mind, I don't see a need for a complete redesign of Star Trek because when I watch Star Trek TOS it still seems and looks futuristic to me even when compared to Star Trek: Enterprise. I believe as we develop more advanced and powerful technology more aspects of it will be automated and we will also develop easier and more efficient methods to interact with and control the technology. Thus with technology becoming increasingly more powerful and more automated and easier to interact and control, it will look simpler and it will appear to us as though its less advanced than the technology we are using today in 2008 when in fact its much more advanced than what we have today. So, I hope in Star Trek XI they maintain the simple and retro look that we had in TOS. Of course there are some things I hope they change. For instance, I doubt we would have gone back to using tapes to store data or have our computers print out results on paper like we saw in the pilot episode in the future.

 

Well, since the ship is going to look SOMETHING like it did before, I guess this isn't the movie for you.

In fact, I guess STAR TREK isn't the thing for you!

Maybe you could find something in a nice James Bond film...

 

Everything you said is wrong.

 

I think that one was used in Batman (1989.) and Batman Returns.

 

Here Here!

If you want a different ship... DO A DIFFERENT SHIP. Any other ship... isn't the SAME ship.

You want a ship that meets your tastes, Aloha? I'm sure you loved the "Voyager." It meets every qualification you seem to have. The fact that it looks like a flying sperm, I'm sure, doesn't alter that, huh?

The original design is the Enterprise. If you want a different ship, you can have it. But it's not the Enterprise. It's something else.

 

Well then, the Enterprise in this movie will be something else.

 

With all due respect you know very little about spacecraft design. The original looked both as elegant as giraffe in roller skates and the polar-opposite of functional, which is difficult to pull off.

I fail to see why anyone would design a ship with so many structural load points, so little interior volume to outside dimensions and with so little access to the import bits.

''oh noes! there is a problem with the nacelle! I will have to get up there, up this long and very tight pylon which isnt wide enough unless i breath in while its flexing back and forth and might as well have targets painted on it for the enemy to aim at as one hit will completely cripple the ship!''

The E got better with redesigns but the ToS version was pretty dire.

 

With all due respect, both of you seem to pay little notice to the difference between "spacecraft design" and filmic art design. All versions of the Enterprise are examples of the latter, not the former.

 

The Enterprise should have three nacelles because that's cooler.

2 nacelles is so 1960.

 

Aloha, I really think that your post is based upon trying to pick a fight rather than trying to argue a point. You're saying things you KNOW that many, if not most, of the folks around here will disagree with and you're saying them in the mosts mocking, inflammatory fashion possible.

You're spoiling for a fight. Why?

Here's the fact. The 1701 is not an actual space vessel. It's a work of art associated with another work of art. Whether or not it's "high art" we can debate, but it's art nevertheless.

Now, there are many issues, both scientific and artistic, associated with the design of this ship. And the design is, by and large, DEEPLY APPRECIATED by people who... let's be blunt here... have a HELL of a lot more experience and scientific knowledge than you seem to have.

It's considered beautiful, and ICONIC, by a hell of a lot of people throughout the population of the planet.

It's not considered beautiful by you. OK, fine, we get it. That's where the "art" part comes into play. I don't particularly appreciate Picasso's work. I think it looks stupid and goofy. Yet, it's still ART.

If I were to come along and paint a new picture... maybe a much BETTER picture (from my perspective) and claim that it should "replace Picasso's original," how do you think people would react to that?

Now, to me, Matt Jeffries' design for the 1701 is gorgeous... it's high art from my standpoint. So your suggestion to "replace" it has the same ring as saying that you want to replace the Mona Lisa with your kindergarten finger-painting and call it the same thing. Go into the gallery where the original is hanging, take it down, and put YOUR "version" up instead... but keep calling it the same thing.

You don't have to LIKE it. And you know what? That's fine.

But I really, REALLY get the impression that this isn't about "not liking it" so much as it's about "let's piss off the people who really DO like it."

Am I wrong about your intentions here? If so.. please explain, just what, exactly, is your POINT?

 

Jefferies.

Just sayin'.