RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,642
Posts: 5,427,770
Members: 24,811
Currently online: 505
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

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


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 Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 20 2004, 07:13 AM   #496
LavianoTS386
Admiral
 
Location: Free Hats For Fat People!
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by cbspock:


The original shot from TWOK always reminded me of one of the shots used in TV series....

Actually that shot is recycled from TMP>
__________________
TrekBBS: The Motion Picture
LavianoTS386 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 07:16 AM   #497
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Actually you're both right. The Klingon cruisers are from TMP while the E is from TWoK (from which I erased the Reliant). If you look closely under the saucer on the left side you can just make out some of the damage to the ship/
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 07:21 AM   #498
LavianoTS386
Admiral
 
Location: Free Hats For Fat People!
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by Warped9:
Actually you're both right. The Klingon cruisers are from TMP while the E is from TWoK (from which I erased the Reliant). If you look closely under the saucer on the left side you can just make out some of the damage to the ship/
Oh wow, I thought that was from the launch sequence! You adjusted the contrast didn't you!
__________________
TrekBBS: The Motion Picture
LavianoTS386 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 07:28 AM   #499
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^^ Yes. I tend to try adding more visual texture and shadowing to my images trying for a look similar to early 1st season TOS. Also for the space scenes I try for more shadow and a little darker look for at least a step towards a little more credibility. It's impossible to be wholly credible because then unless the ship were very near a star than the only things visible would be the windows and running lights.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 09:14 AM   #500
Khan Noonian Singh
Rear Admiral
 
Location: 1/4th of your world
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by cbspock:
I love the TOS "update" with the movie era displays. Good job!!! For the fans that are attacking them for "updating" TOS, it isn't like the changes made to Star Wars.
Oh no, not at all- this is just fans having fun. However, were there to be a real Trek Special Edition done in the manner of websbest's work, it'd be a far more sweeping change than the Star Wars Special Editions. I don't like the SWSEs, but they just insert a few clumsy, random new effects here and there. A complete and total overhaul of Trek's visual style would be *far* more revisionist.
__________________
"For three years, they had me peein' out of a cup. Now they 'bout to free me up. Whatchu think I'm gon' be? What? Rehabilitated? Man, I still feel hatred."
-Jay-Z- Threat
Khan Noonian Singh is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 11:40 AM   #501
minion of unorthodoxy
Commander
 
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

The image of 1701 facing off against the Borg gave me the creeps. Well done.
minion of unorthodoxy is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 02:58 PM   #502
Guest
 
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by Warped9:

Actually, FourMadMen's approach does refute your approach because he hasn't added anything that is revisionist, but rather follows through on the original conceptual thinking.
Take a look at any of the interior machinery shown on TOS and you'll see that in most cases it all looks like gutted out transister radio parts and big clunky tape recorders. THAT was the conceptual thinking of the time. FourMadMen's approach is nothing more than applying modern technological aesthetics to what is essentially a very cheap model. Don't misunderstand me: what he created is actually extremely cool and I'm really just floored by his rendering. But this is where our views about all of this split. What he is showing looks awesome, but the viewer never gets to see that. The point of building a set model is to convince the viewer that the ship can actually fly. The TOS shuttle isn't convincing to most people, because they first have to believe that a ship that looks like that probably has the inner machinery to match the cgi graphic you posted. But it doesn't, unless you have spend a long time studying trek technical manuals or the designs of creative fans like FourMadMen.

The 'contextual enhancements' you posted are also somewhat interesting to look at, although to be honest I don't see any point to it. There are no real improvements in those images, just more of the same outdated-looking hardware. There are so few changes to the images that I'm not even sure what has been changed or added.

I am confident that Paramount WILL eventually get around to a TOS special edition someday, assuming Star Trek is even a worthwhile investment in the next few years. If it happens, I would guess they would take a couple of the best episodes and expand upon them for a theatrical release, which means they will do far more than add a couple of extra gadgets on the enterprise corridor wall. In fact, my kind of revisions are probably very minor compared to what they may be willing to do. If we are lucky, they will have people involved who have the kind of respect for TOS that you have, to counter-balance those like me who, while having great respect for the visuals of TOS, would probably end up wanting to cut out the entire background and start from scratch.
 
Old June 20 2004, 04:54 PM   #503
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^^

I've been following FMM's and Phil Broad's projects almost from their beginnings and there is nothing revisionist whatsoever about their work. You will note that they haven't added all sorts of extraneous robot debris and teltale winkies that were never intended to be there in the first place. They are using modern tools (as I am with Photoshop) to enhance what Star Trek already had. TOS rarely showed the inner workings of things on the show, which in a sense maintained the sense of intrigue regarding how they worked. And there is no question that in twenty or so years time the stuff on contemporary Trek is likely going to look hokey as well.

Why can you not distinguish between intent and what tools and materials are at hand? I used to fashion spaceships out of pieces of cardboard and blocks of word and fly to the ends of the universe in my imagination when I was younger. I can sketch out far-future starships on a scrap of paper and in my mind they are all surely more than the simple materials I have at hand. But it seems some folks cannot make that abstract conceptual leap--they have to have everything laid out for them in excrutiating "blinky" detail or theysimply cannot understand.

Would it ruin your sense of disbelief to know that the bulkheads and consoles on contemporary Trek are made of flimsy and rather cheesy looking plastic? I've seen some of the actual sets on display at an exhibit some years ago. I've also seen some recreations of the TOS sets and props. What I found hugely fascinating is how the props and set replicas of TOS looked far more impressive in person that the same things from current Trek. The TOS phasers look like real damned weapons while the TNG "dustbuster" phasers look like Playmates toys.

Man, we know a viewscreen may have been a cardboard photograph, but we also understand that that was not what it was supposed to be and we understand what was intended. We are able to make that conceptual leap in imagination. We know that if they had had the time and money all the viewscreens ever seen on the show would have looked and behaved more like the main viewscreen on the ship's bridge. And it must be said the the idea of flatscreens and some of the forms they took on the show were easily thirty years ahead of some of which is only recently coming to market for you to buy and use at home. I cannot think of anything on contemporary Trek that can make such claims.

This is the essential distinction that you seem unable to grasp: the conceptual intent beyond the materials at hand to suggest an idea.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:05 PM   #504
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by websbestcomics:
Take a look at any of the interior machinery shown on TOS and you'll see that in most cases it all looks like gutted out transister radio parts and big clunky tape recorders.
Sometimes. But sometimes, you see Spock messing with the guts of his library computer and the "transistors" are strangely shaped blocks -- very weird and evocative of some kind of strange, future technology. When there was time to do it right they did. Their intent is pretty well known from the times they did do it right. Sometimes, for either time reasons or because they wanted to be very literal to communicate a point, they used contemporary technology as the inner workings of their equipment.

The modern viewer is capable of handling the weird stuff and still seeing the intent, so I am with those that would look to what the creators of TOS would have liked to have done, and use that as a launching point for enhancing the look of that period. Even there some of the ideas are dated, so they would require a deft hand to integrate them into both the TOS look and feel, and what says "far future" to the modern viewer. But not too much. The look of that show is more iconic than the look of Shatner and Nimoy. That was lost on the makers of the TOS movies -- they saw it all as background. Not so -- that "background" spoke volumes about the world of these people, their tastes, likes and dislikes, what they thought as beautiful and functional, in short what filled their eyes and ears and made them who they were. Not mere window dressing by a long shot.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:10 PM   #505
Classic Fan
Rear Admiral
 
Classic Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Tardis library
View Classic Fan's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Classic Fan
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by Warped9:
^^

I've been following FMM's and Phil Broad's projects almost from their beginnings and there is nothing revisionist whatsoever about their work. You will note that they haven't added all sorts of extraneous robot debris and teltale winkies that were never intended to be there in the first place. They are using modern tools (as I am with Photoshop) to enhance what Star Trek already had. TOS rarely showed the inner workings of things on the show, which in a sense maintained the sense of intrigue regarding how they worked. And there is no question that in twenty or so years time the stuff on contemporary Trek is likely going to look hokey as well.

Why can you not distinguish between intent and what tools and materials are at hand? I used to fashion spaceships out of pieces of cardboard and blocks of word and fly to the ends of the universe in my imagination when I was younger. I can sketch out far-future starships on a scrap of paper and in my mind they are all surely more than the simple materials I have at hand. But it seems some folks cannot make that abstract conceptual leap--they have to have everything laid out for them in excrutiating "blinky" detail or theysimply cannot understand.

Would it ruin your sense of disbelief to know that the bulkheads and consoles on contemporary Trek are made of flimsy and rather cheesy looking plastic? I've seen some of the actual sets on display at an exhibit some years ago. I've also seen some recreations of the TOS sets and props. What I found hugely fascinating is how the props and set replicas of TOS looked far more impressive in person that the same things from current Trek. The TOS phasers look like real damned weapons while the TNG "dustbuster" phasers look like Playmates toys.

Man, we know a viewscreen may have been a cardboard photograph, but we also understand that that was not what it was supposed to be and we understand what was intended. We are able to make that conceptual leap in imagination. We know that if they had had the time and money all the viewscreens ever seen on the show would have looked and behaved more like the main viewscreen on the ship's bridge. And it must be said the the idea of flatscreens and some of the forms they took on the show were easily thirty years ahead of some of which is only recently coming to market for you to buy and use at home. I cannot think of anything on contemporary Trek that can make such claims.

This is the essential distinction that you seem unable to grasp: the conceptual intent beyond the materials at hand to suggest an idea.
That is exactly my views on the Trek production values in the early days.

Couldnt of said it better.

In reality the bulkheads may be layerd plywood or sheet metal, but imagination would dictate that within those bulkheads, other than support beams were conduits, jefferies tubes, air ducts, emergency equipment storage etc etc.

Thats the effect the SFX guys set out for, people to use their imagination rather than like said, have it laid out for the lazyness in all of us.


On a different note, didnt Roddenberry once say that the circuitry on Trek was of an organic type hybrid, with quick efficient calcualtions and functions. I think it was an interview or a book i read. Could be wrong mind you.
__________________
"Course your not,your not scared of anything. Box falls out the sky, man falls out of box, man eats fish custard. Look at you, just sittin' there,you know what i think? Must be helluva scary crack in your wall" - The Doctor
Classic Fan is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:15 PM   #506
LavianoTS386
Admiral
 
Location: Free Hats For Fat People!
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^ More importantly TV-shows were still consittered extentions of Stage plays in that era. And the sets were there to suggest and not to tell.
__________________
TrekBBS: The Motion Picture
LavianoTS386 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:21 PM   #507
Classic Fan
Rear Admiral
 
Classic Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Tardis library
View Classic Fan's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Classic Fan
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by LavianoTS386:
^ More importantly TV-shows were still consittered extentions of Stage plays in that era. And the sets were there to suggest and not to tell.
And that is all i had to have typed.

Yeah, thats exactly what i meant, but couldnt convey.

Cheers.
__________________
"Course your not,your not scared of anything. Box falls out the sky, man falls out of box, man eats fish custard. Look at you, just sittin' there,you know what i think? Must be helluva scary crack in your wall" - The Doctor
Classic Fan is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:21 PM   #508
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by websbestcomics:
The 'contextual enhancements' you posted are also somewhat interesting to look at, although to be honest I don't see any point to it. There are no real improvements in those images, just more of the same outdated-looking hardware. There are so few changes to the images that I'm not even sure what has been changed or added.

You may not have realized this, but I'm going to take that as a compliment even if you didn't intend that way. If I was able to make my enhancements seamless then I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. But if one really looks at what I've done I've attempted to add visual texture and density by building on what was already there yet without marring what was already there. The distinction between our approaches seems to come down to our differing views of what "improved" means. My approach equates "improved" with simply enhancing and cleaning up the original work. Your "improvement" equates with rewriting and shunning what is already there because it doesn't suit you aesthetically and thus you cannot grasp the intent.

The differences may also lay in individual mindset. I essentially agree with the kind of future aesthetc presented on TOS, that of being clean and streamlined in form and substance--clean and sleek equals sophisticated and advanced. The post Star Wars mindset is reflected in the aesthetic that the future should look more cluttered and extraneously detailed to look credible. That is why I've grown increasingly disappointed with the "lool" Trek has taken on since TWoK onward--it has become cluttered and industrial like as opposed to sleek and streamlined as evidenced in TOS and TMP.

You know it parallels the idea of enhancements in the original Star Wars trilogy and ST-TMP. In many cases one has to compare the new with the old side-by-side to see what was actually changed--that is the result of seamless enhancement. Otherwise you're sometimes wondering what was changed. It is also a testament to the original work that it accomplished what it was intended to do--that it triggered your imagination to "fill in the blanks" where something was actually missing or lacking.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 05:33 PM   #509
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

^ And the real point is, if you are going to thoroughly change the look of Star Trek just to please a few viewers who might think the look "dated", then why not do something entirely original instead? Make a new space opera that looks the way the creator thinks people today would want to see it done.

But of course that won't be done, will it? The "Star Trek" label is too valuable to ignore. So instead of respecting what made it valuable in the first place -- great design and writing -- ignore that and make something new and just use the name. What dreadful superficiality.

I think Warped has it right. The only problem with the "look" of TOS is what is created by the improved resolutions of our era. They make it obvious that the great designs were executed with cheap materials. They also make the sparseness of detail a bit more than a statement on futuristic simplicity, and edge toward blandness. The answer is to remake the sets and ships using better building materials and adding detail and texture. That way your plasma screen TV won't reveal the fact you're looking at a stage set.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old June 20 2004, 10:44 PM   #510
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...

Posted by Warped9:
Posted by websbestcomics:
The 'contextual enhancements' you posted are also somewhat interesting to look at, although to be honest I don't see any point to it. There are no real improvements in those images, just more of the same outdated-looking hardware. There are so few changes to the images that I'm not even sure what has been changed or added.

You may not have realized this, but I'm going to take that as a compliment even if you didn't intend that way. If I was able to make my enhancements seamless then I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. But if one really looks at what I've done I've attempted to add visual texture and density by building on what was already there yet without marring what was already there. The distinction between our approaches seems to come down to our differing views of what "improved" means. My approach equates "improved" with simply enhancing and cleaning up the original work. Your "improvement" equates with rewriting and shunning what is already there because it doesn't suit you aesthetically and thus you cannot grasp the intent.

The differences may also lay in individual mindset. I essentially agree with the kind of future aesthetc presented on TOS, that of being clean and streamlined in form and substance--clean and sleek equals sophisticated and advanced. The post Star Wars mindset is reflected in the aesthetic that the future should look more cluttered and extraneously detailed to look credible. That is why I've grown increasingly disappointed with the "lool" Trek has taken on since TWoK onward--it has become cluttered and industrial like as opposed to sleek and streamlined as evidenced in TOS and TMP.

You know it parallels the idea of enhancements in the original Star Wars trilogy and ST-TMP. In many cases one has to compare the new with the old side-by-side to see what was actually changed--that is the result of seamless enhancement. Otherwise you're sometimes wondering what was changed. It is also a testament to the original work that it accomplished what it was intended to do--that it triggered your imagination to "fill in the blanks" where something was actually missing or lacking.
I'd like to more clearly illustrate my view of enhancing TOS. Sometimes it isn't apparent what has been changed, and so here are the first couple of before-and-after examples.

From "The Trouble With Tribbles"


From "The Ultimate Computer"
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:23 AM.

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