Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

[Saratoga NX-3842]

People have been complaining that they want the Enterprise\Bridge\uniforms to look like they did on TOS. Here is visual evidence that improving it and mondernizing it is a great thing and why I feel it will be a great looking film at the very least.

[HRHTheKING]

I agree.

[Rhaenys]

Well, actually, this proves to me that redesign may also be a bad thing. This was my favorite Batmobile:


The newest one is really ugly.

Yeah, the new one looks powerful, but this one was really elegant, and it suits to Batman.
And Keaton's, Kilmer's and Clooney's costumes were also great.
(Yes, I'm a big fan of Burton Batman films. )

But Bale is the hottest Batman.

[Sector 7]

Good example. I've been optimistic about this movie from the beginning. Nice to see a positive post.

[Sector 7]

Rhaenys wrote:

---

Well, actually, this proves to me that redesign may also be a bad thing. This was my favorite Batmobile:


The newest one is really ugly.

Yeah, the new one looks powerful, but this one was really elegant, and it suits to Batman.

It was all show and no go, though. I saw it at an auto show when the movie came out. I was so disappointed. I went past the rope to have a closer look. The intakes in front of the rear tires had regular screen door screen over the opening. This was to cover the fact that the whole car was a shell on 2 axles. NOTHING inside. At least the original was a REAL car.
I fell out of love with that batmobile really fast.
I may be gay, but I HATED when JOEL SCHUMAKER put nipples on the bat costumes. He raped my childhood!

[Rhaenys]

I read this on Wiki about Burton films Batmobile:
"Every gadget seen on the Batmobile used in these films was fully functional, including the jet engine, which consumed fuel at such a high rate that there was only enough fuel capacity to run it for the approximately fifteen seconds of the longest shot in which it could be seen operating."


Oh, I forgot to say, I really don't worry about Enterprise redesign. A good story is more important, I'm sure Enterprise will look fine.

[Franklin]

Rhaenys wrote:

---

I read this on Wiki about Burton films Batmobile:
"Every gadget seen on the Batmobile used in these films was fully functional, including the jet engine, which consumed fuel at such a high rate that there was only enough fuel capacity to run it for the approximately fifteen seconds of the longest shot in which it could be seen operating."


Oh, I forgot to say, I really don't worry about Enterprise redesign. A good story is more important, I'm sure Enterprise will look fine.

I read the real top speed of that machine (the 1960s Batmobile) was only 45 mph, though. Maybe it's my age showing, but while there's nothing wrong with the other batmobile's, I don't see them as "improvements" over Adam West's machine.

I'd think that if Abrams stayed as true as he did to the old design of the uniforms (where he had a lot more in design), then certainly the Enterprise will look just as good and "old" at the same time.

[Cicero]

^ The quotation refers to the Burton film Batmobile from 89 and 92, actually. The reported top speed of that vehicle was apparently only 30 mph, because of its extreme weight.

[Sector 7]

Here is an official source of information about the original batmobile:
www.1966batmobile.com

[Franklin]

Cicero wrote:

---

^ The quotation refers to the Burton film Batmobile from 89 and 92, actually. The reported top speed of that vehicle was apparently only 30 mph, because of its extreme weight.

You're right. I shouldn't read anything before my morning coffee.

For what it's worth, I hear the TOS Enterprise could really only do warp two. For speeds above that, they sped up the film.

[ancient]

A redesign can be either good or bad, on a case-by-case basis.

Remember, the nipple suit was also a redesign.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not sure what makes that site an "official" source of info about the 1966 Batmobile, but it certainly is a good one.

Anyway, quibbling over whether the Nolan Batmobile is better than the Burton Batmobile or vice versa concedes the OP's main point, which is valid: design evolution of some kind is more likely to be positive than not. Both of those are more suitable to their respective times than the 1966 version would have been.

The ST:TMP version of the Enterprise is dated in its own way - those engine nacelles look passingly like a 1977 Ford Mustang II.

[Brutal Strudel]

Apples to Orange Catholic Bibles: Batman has always supported a plethora of interpretations and continua, Star Trek--not counting parallel universes--only one. No one is asking us to view Batman Begins as a prequel to the Batman tv show. From what we're getting on Star Trek (XI), we are meant to see it as a prequel to the Star Trek tv show of the sixties--the presence of Nimoy seems to cinch that. So it is a bit more problemattic.

I say "seems" because (to bring in a third series) the Craig Bond films have Judy Dench, playing an alternate version of the M she played in the Brosnan films, so there is a precedent for a total re-boot carrying over vestiges from the last iteration in ambiguous ways. Old Spock may be played by Leonard Nimoy but he may not be the same Spock we saw in the original 79 episodes any more than Craig's Bond is Brosnan's Bond or Bale's Bruce Wayne is Adam West's.

I find that the less I "care" about this, the more interesting it becomes as an intellectual exercise. I care very little about Bond films and thus I've enjoyed most of the old movies, all the Brosnans and Casino Royale and I'm looking forward to Quantum of Solace. I care very little about Batman and thus I hated Burton's first one and both Schumachers on their merits (I do like Batman Returns). I thought that Batman Begins was criminally overrated and liked Dark Knight but with some rather major caveats.

I'm looking forward to judging Star Trek on its merits as well. The only way I can do that is by not being a fan. And that's fine--Trek hasn't been good enough to warrant fannish devotion since I was twelve years old. These last 26 years I've been going on force of habit.

[Therin of Andor]

Sector 7 wrote:

---

It was all show and no go, though. I saw it at an auto show when the movie came out. I was so disappointed. I went past the rope to have a closer look. The intakes in front of the rear tires had regular screen door screen over the opening. This was to cover the fact that the whole car was a shell on 2 axles. NOTHING inside. At least the original was a REAL car.
I fell out of love with that batmobile really fast.

IIRC, there were numerous versions, depending on what they were needed for: set dressing, turning corners, going fast, whatever.

[Dale]

I'm sorry, OP, but your examples don't entirely make your argument in my book. I still dig the original batmobile and consider the new one to be a boring, ugly piece of military hardware. As for the in-between batmobiles, they were an interesting evolution but were a tad over the top in my opinion... but then the production design of those films was entirely over the top anyway.

As for Adam West's Batman costume, it was quite faithful to the comic book art of the time and was intended as camp, anyway. I think the latest Batman armor is a bit too black 'n' grim... I think I prefer the Keaton Batman costume. And like another poster above, I balk at the inclusion of bat-nipples on the later (but not, thankfully, latest) costumes.

As for the new Trek production, set and costume designs, it appears I'm getting what I'm hoping for thus far... something familiar-but-updated which pays visual homage to the original designs without being campy or ludicrous.