RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,622
Posts: 5,426,543
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 477
Newest member: down to earth

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 16 2014, 01:38 AM   #31
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Sulu managed to make the Excelsior seem hip in Trek VI, but I don't think it ever deserved to have the Enteprise label on it (The -B in generations). It just doesn't have the classic lines, but then again, neither does the -D (IMHO) which is too much of a manta-ray sort of thing.

The Enterprise coming back in the same shape is a resurrection of sorts, which matches Spock coming back basically as-is in Trek IV. It wouldn't have quite the same symmetry had the ship not at least looked the same on the outside, although at the time I was quite thrilled with the flashy touch-panel interior (which I guess was just a redressed Excelsior set).
No the Excelsior set was just an awful kludge, a one-off I think. The touch stuff on that crazy white TVH bridge was Okuda (his first trek show.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 02:25 AM   #32
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Yeah, I prefer the ST:VI Excelsior bridge. The ST:III bridge just looked... glossy and wide. Most of the space looked wasteful, IMO.
__________________
I tried to make a deal with the Devil, once. Turns out I didn't have anything he wanted.
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You will never find a more welcome hive of love and humility.
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 03:07 AM   #33
dswynne1
Lieutenant
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
Khan 2.0 wrote: View Post
wonder what the reaction wouldve been had they used the Ent D for the Ent A...
Probably something along the lines of "What the hell is this?" since Star Trek IV came out in 1986, and TNG came out in 1987.
I think what he meant to say was "What if there was a new model for the Enterprise-A at the end of STIV, and then it was used as the new ship for TNG the next year" (i.e. TNG would be about the crew of the Ent-A, although the filming model itself would have been the same as the D.) At least I think that's what he meant; I could be completely wrong.
SNIP!

No, I was referring to a ship design set in the 23rd century, not the 24th century. I was not referring to TNG, so I do apologize if I wasn't clear. Anyway, my point was that I was wondering why the studios didn't use, an Excelsior-class, a modification of an existing class (like a post-refit Constitution-class, with a new nacelle design) or simply create a brand new class of starship for that era, for the next set of films. Don't get me wrong: I like Constitution-class design, but I wanted to see something new commanded by Kirk at the end of TVH. That's all...
dswynne1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 05:08 AM   #34
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

J. Allen wrote: View Post
Yeah, I prefer the ST:VI Excelsior bridge. The ST:III bridge just looked... glossy and wide. Most of the space looked wasteful, IMO.
Plus I'm pretty sure it has the cheap 2nd season Buck Rogers look of it all being on a single level. THE SEARCHER on BUCK really looked almost exactly like what you get shooting in somebody's garage. Platforming or elevating a section does wonders for this kind of thing (check out RED OCTOBER and you'll see it is like a boxing ring where the periscope is located.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 05:13 AM   #35
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

trevanian wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
Yeah, I prefer the ST:VI Excelsior bridge. The ST:III bridge just looked... glossy and wide. Most of the space looked wasteful, IMO.
Plus I'm pretty sure it has the cheap 2nd season Buck Rogers look of it all being on a single level. THE SEARCHER on BUCK really looked almost exactly like what you get shooting in somebody's garage. Platforming or elevating a section does wonders for this kind of thing (check out RED OCTOBER and you'll see it is like a boxing ring where the periscope is located.)
That can make a difference, I agree. It really does feel like "we set this up in our garage," and that's no slight against Michael Okuda. For me, it just didn't work onscreen. Everything looked too big for a ship of that size. Granted, it was a large ship, but the ST:VI bridge just feels more tactical, I guess.
__________________
I tried to make a deal with the Devil, once. Turns out I didn't have anything he wanted.
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You will never find a more welcome hive of love and humility.
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 05:32 AM   #36
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

J. Allen wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
Yeah, I prefer the ST:VI Excelsior bridge. The ST:III bridge just looked... glossy and wide. Most of the space looked wasteful, IMO.
Plus I'm pretty sure it has the cheap 2nd season Buck Rogers look of it all being on a single level. THE SEARCHER on BUCK really looked almost exactly like what you get shooting in somebody's garage. Platforming or elevating a section does wonders for this kind of thing (check out RED OCTOBER and you'll see it is like a boxing ring where the periscope is located.)
That can make a difference, I agree. It really does feel like "we set this up in our garage," and that's no slight against Michael Okuda. For me, it just didn't work onscreen. Everything looked too big for a ship of that size. Granted, it was a large ship, but the ST:VI bridge just feels more tactical, I guess.
I may have written it wrong; Okuda did the TVH E-a bridge graphics and the graphics for the BoP, he wasn't on SFS (that was a guy who helped on the original GALACTICA, i think, and NOT a good choice coming on the heels of Joe Jennings. I think the main art directors on the Nimoy films are EXTREMELY weak links, and the fact they pretty much let ILM design stuff WAY outside their purview like tricorders is a pretty good indicator of same.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 06:04 AM   #37
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Ah, my mistake then. Still, I think most things looked really good in III, it's just the bridge felt off. Maybe if it was smaller, maybe if it had a dais, or something.
__________________
I tried to make a deal with the Devil, once. Turns out I didn't have anything he wanted.
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You will never find a more welcome hive of love and humility.
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 06:29 AM   #38
FormerLurker
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

The Excelsior bridge in SFS was terrible. It looked like a garage version of the TOS bridge with the seats from the shuttle on Space Academy wheeled in to make it look more 'spacey'. I look at it as a bridge module meant exclusively for testing, and that it will get replaced if/when the testing ends and the ship receives a commission for regular service.
FormerLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 06:46 AM   #39
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

dswynne1 wrote: View Post
No, I was referring to a ship design set in the 23rd century, not the 24th century. I was not referring to TNG, so I do apologize if I wasn't clear. Anyway, my point was that I was wondering why the studios didn't use, an Excelsior-class, a modification of an existing class (like a post-refit Constitution-class, with a new nacelle design) or simply create a brand new class of starship for that era, for the next set of films. Don't get me wrong: I like Constitution-class design, but I wanted to see something new commanded by Kirk at the end of TVH. That's all...
Er, what? The post you attributed to me was in response to Khan 2.0, not you.

mos6507 wrote: View Post
The Enterprise coming back in the same shape is a resurrection of sorts, which matches Spock coming back basically as-is in Trek IV. It wouldn't have quite the same symmetry had the ship not at least looked the same on the outside, although at the time I was quite thrilled with the flashy touch-panel interior (which I guess was just a redressed Excelsior set).
Interesting analogy; I never thought of that before.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 08:22 AM   #40
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

I loved the STIII Excelsior bridge. It seemed huge, and the whole "Wow, touchscreen WALLS" floored Young Daniel. When STV came along, I thought "Cool, they've upgraded the Enterprise with the futuristic Excelsior tech"

In VI, however, the set looked tiny (is it really the V set? In V the bridge looked much more spacious) and was very obviously a slightly redressed Enterprise.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 10:28 AM   #41
Khan 2.0
Commander
 
Khan 2.0's Avatar
 
Location: earth...but when?...spock?
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
Khan 2.0 wrote: View Post
wonder what the reaction wouldve been had they used the Ent D for the Ent A...
Probably something along the lines of "What the hell is this?" since Star Trek IV came out in 1986, and TNG came out in 1987.
I think what he meant to say was "What if there was a new model for the Enterprise-A at the end of STIV, and then it was used as the new ship for TNG the next year" (i.e. TNG would be about the crew of the Ent-A, although the filming model itself would have been the same as the D.) At least I think that's what he meant; I could be completely wrong. But with that scenario, basically that would have meant that TNG would have taken place right after STIV, and not in the 24th century 75 years later. The TOS cast could have been gradually replaced by the new cast, and the use of the movie ship models would have been more contemporary. Or they could have set the show five or so years later, with the TOS crew already gone by that point, so the Ent-A would have already had some spacetime logged, have uniform and prop changes made, etc. Also, I don't think that if this scenario actually happened, that the ship would look anything like the D, as it would not have been designed by Andrew Probert but more likely by someone like Bill George.
no i just meant what if the A had been a radical departure from what audiences were used to. But your theory is an interesting one
Khan 2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 01:43 PM   #42
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

FormerLurker wrote: View Post
The Excelsior bridge in SFS was terrible. It looked like a garage version of the TOS bridge with the seats from the shuttle on Space Academy wheeled in to make it look more 'spacey'. I look at it as a bridge module meant exclusively for testing, and that it will get replaced if/when the testing ends and the ship receives a commission for regular service.
I've gotta agree. It looks particularly bad because it's so bare. No steps, no interesting angles, all one colour, no sense of depth. It's literally a room with just a couple of consoles and a few chairs. Yeah, it's probably best to see it as some kind of temporary test bridge module that gets unplugged and replaced when the ship goes into regular service.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 03:21 PM   #43
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

^ And why did they have those huge backlit signs next to the turbolift that indicated whatever alert the ship was on? Couldn't they just use lighting for that, like every other ship does?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 04:05 PM   #44
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

The D always looked like a 24th Century luxury liner/oil tanker hybrid to me so I initially preferred the E. Now? Pretty much hate 'em both.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2014, 04:16 PM   #45
Richard Baker
Commander
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

I can understand keeping that expensive filming model for the Enterprise-A, but I do wish they had made some small changes externally instead of just altering the NCC number. The Refit was just that- taking old hardware and updating it to newer technologies, the new ship should have taken that one step further since they were starting from a blank slate.
I did think it was a nice touch however when they stepped on the shiny new bridge and you heard a lot of the TOS Bridge equipment sounds once again.
Richard Baker 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 03:06 PM.

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