Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by dswynne1, May 13, 2014.
I liked them keeping the Probert/Jefferies design.
I was also an avid reader of the comics at the time, but I never liked that they used the Excelsior instead of another ship. And when it turned out that the comics were essentially invalidated once it was established that IV took place only three months after III (and the crew were on Vulcan for the entire time), then it really didn't matter.
So many things would have been stylistically wrong with that scenario though. The Excelsior was established as being the "enemy" ship (as compared to the Enterprise) and too big for her own britches, and certainly Scotty had ill will toward her. Just renaming the ship wouldn't have made it a different ship or taken away all that negativity toward her. Plus, the dramatic tension of the crew flying toward the hated Excelsior only to fly past it toward their "old" ship was such a profound moment in the film. That would have been eliminated (along with some great dialogue by Scotty and Kirk) had the scene played out differently.
wonder what the reaction wouldve been had they used the Ent D for the Ent A...
I also wish they had kept the Ent-D, would have loved to have seen it in First Contact. I didn't like the E to begin with but it's grown on me over the years and is now one of my Trek ships.
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.
Same here. The Enterprise-D was the best of those ships as far as I'm concerned. I always (and still do) hated the Enterprise-E also.
The Excelsior Class design was met with dislike when ST III came to theatres. One of the writers for Cinefantastique wrote an article going in-depth what he felt was wrong with the ILM designs and the Excelsior in particular.
How far this article influenced fans, then, I can't tell but even prominent Bjo Trimble called it a "a pregnant duck".
So when Sulu said at the end of ST IV he was hoping they'd get the Excelsior it seemed deliberate to me to make many fans anticipate the worst, just to get them excited when they saw the actual NCC-1701-A.
At least they should have replaced the "old" warp nacelles with new "transwarp style" ones of the Excelsior to show that they were making an effort not to look that cheap. YMMV.
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).
While I take exception to the angular plating on the -E, which looks like it came off the K'tinga from TMP, I find it a signficant improvement over the -D, which I always disliked. I remember somebody getting me the model kit of the -D, and (before I intentionally dropped it from a great height) I deliberately put the nacelles on backwards, which improved the thing a helluva lot in terms of more graceful lines.
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.)
Yeah, I prefer the ST:VI Excelsior bridge. The ST:III bridge just looked... glossy and wide. Most of the space looked wasteful, IMO.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Er, what? The post you attributed to me was in response to Khan 2.0, not you.
Interesting analogy; I never thought of that before.
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.
Separate names with a comma.