Reveal: New transporter design!

[zar]

Yep, its not in there because it fits Trek, its there because it launched trek. Look at all the canon ships, all the styles, the TOS connie is the one that does not belong in the lineup. You can see the TMP ship as a legacy of the NX, but not the TOS ship, it does not belong in the lineages...

This is such a baffling comment. The TOS and TMP versions are largely the same except for the saucer domes, nacelles and deflector styles - which all happen to be elements that the NX design deliberately incorporated from the TOS version. It would be one thing if you said neither of them fit, but if only one of them does, it's obviously the TOS. What are you looking at?

...Now the TMP ship fits, heck maybe even the Phase II ship( which was Roddenberry throwing out the TOS design), but the TOS ship just does not logically fit in any way. Its more primitive than the NX, it screams "Hey I am from the 60's and I am Groovy baby"

So yeah, its trek Lameduck ship design, one its creator tossed away at his first, 2nd and 3rd chance.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but Roddenberry, Matt Jefferies (TOS), Ralph McQuarrie (Phase II), and Richard Taylor/Andrew Probert (TMP) are all different people, and none of them were embarrassed by their designs. Roddenberry was never a model creator, nor did he try to toss old designs. In fact, he wanted to be even more conservative and it had to be explained to him that it wouldn't work on the big screen:

it was a mandate from Gene Roddenberry that the configuration of the Enterprise is similar to that of the original series; meaning that there be a saucer, the large dorsal, fuselage, two-struts at an angle and nacelles. So, it needed to have a similar configuration, but not be exactly the same. My approach was to kind of give it a stylization that was almost Art Deco. I spent weeks drawing and re-drawing the nacelles. I mean the front-end of the nacelles is almost a 1940 Ford grill. But I tried to make it have a very art-deco feel; for example I added the parallel lines along the edge of the saucer. Things became more elongated and more elegant than the television series version.

When we first came on the project we had to look at everything that existed and Roddenberry said, “Just use the sets that we’re building and the models we are building”. So, I gave the models and honest look but had to tell them in the end that “If you use these models and sets, you’re going to be laughed out of the theatre”. The models would have been embarrassing at best. They were really old school in their detail and were not built to armature and light the way we needed for motion control. They looked like the old television show. Again, Don Loos built the Enterprise and Magicam built the dry-dock and a few other things but they were building for a television movie. The resolution of television is forgiving; the big screen is not. I sat down with Roddenberry and Katzenberg and said we are going to have to redesign the Enterprise because it needs to be armatured from six sides and it needs to have lighting systems in it. I told them “You saw Star Wars. You saw the quality of those models and for us to shoot these models of yours with motion control; to put that motion blur in there with multiple passes… it has to have lights that we can control for individual passes”. If the camera is going to get close to the model–say, up close to the windows, the model has got to be big enough for us to give it detail. Trying to film a model that is too small is deadly. The focus, lighting, depth of field, surface textures and much more come into play.

http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/interview-with-richard-taylor/

 

[uniderth]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but Roddenberry, Matt Jefferies (TOS), Ralph McQuarrie (Phase II), and Richard Taylor/Andrew Probert (TMP) are all different people, and none of them were embarrassed by their designs. Roddenberry was never a model creator, nor did he try to toss old designs. In fact, he wanted to be even more conservative and it had to be explained to him that it wouldn't work on the big screen:


http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/interview-with-richard-taylor/

Which what that is really saying to me is that there was a problem with the quality of the models not the design of them. The models were not made for the more rigorous standards of film. It didn't need a new design just better quality. Which it ended up getting, plus a little face lift, in TMP.

 

[fireproof78]

So did the Klingons.

 

[Galaxy]

I would say that, imo, the TMP Enterprise has stood the test of time the best, even more so then the Galaxy class where the large neon lighted areas date (imo) the design. That being said, I do believe that the TOS design language can still work (exterior, not interior). The Sean Tourangeau/Tobias Richter designed Ares is gorgeous to look at. Tobias did, imo, make the right decision to remove the deflector dish that Sean had put into the design.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

TOS has been rerun endlessly for the last 50 years and that includes The Menagerie.

Just as the general public seems to remember one-off TOS episodes to the point of becoming pop-cultural icons (like the Gorn in Arena), a LOT of the general public remember The Menagerie, not just obsessive Trek nerds. If there's a reaction-GIF of it, it resonates.



In addition to that you had the prominent use of Pike in the Kelvin timeline. Stylistically different, of course, but a reminder of what came before Kirk.

And once more, this is not "The cage" many have zero clue parts of this come from the failed pilot. I did not for decades, I am pretty sure many who where introduced to trek though the 09 reboot also have no freaking clue. Its not relevent at all. Not like its the first time trek has retconned things.

This is such a baffling comment. The TOS and TMP versions are largely the same except for the saucer domes, nacelles and deflector styles - which all happen to be elements that the NX design deliberately incorporated from the TOS version. It would be one thing if you said neither of them fit, but if only one of them does, it's obviously the TOS. What are you looking at?



I'm not sure if you realize this, but Roddenberry, Matt Jefferies (TOS), Ralph McQuarrie (Phase II), and Richard Taylor/Andrew Probert (TMP) are all different people, and none of them were embarrassed by their designs. Roddenberry was never a model creator, nor did he try to toss old designs. In fact, he wanted to be even more conservative and it had to be explained to him that it wouldn't work on the big screen:


http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/interview-with-richard-taylor/

1: They are not largely the same. They share a basic shape but the saucer, secondary hull, nacelles, pylons and even texture and detail are not the same at all. A non-trek fan would not recognize those as the same ship. Maybe a class or related classes but its clearly not the same design.

2: No the NX does not share the same design elements at all. Its not sleek, its not plastic looking , its not got the "Hey I am from the 60's" style choices or the other workmen and ultra utilitarian design elements.

3: I was speaking of Roddenberry, he tossed the design at his first chance, he never intended to keep it. The design simply does not fit within what came later, it was the first but styles changed and it simply does not fit.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I would say that, imo, the TMP Enterprise has stood the test of time the best, even more so then the Galaxy class where the large neon lighted areas date (imo) the design. That being said, I do believe that the TOS design language can still work (exterior, not interior). The Sean Tourangeau/Tobias Richter designed Ares is gorgeous to look at. Tobias did, imo, make the right decision to remove the deflector dish that Sean had put into the design.

TMP ship, I agree but that is not the TOS design.

 

[Jesse1066]

And once more, this is not "The cage" many have zero clue parts of this come from the failed pilot. I did not for decades, I am pretty sure many who where introduced to trek though the 09 reboot also have no freaking clue. Its not relevent at all. Not like its the first time trek has retconned things.



1: They are not largely the same. They share a basic shape but the saucer, secondary hull, nacelles, pylons and even texture and detail are not the same at all. A non-trek fan would not recognize those as the same ship. Maybe a class or related classes but its clearly not the same design.

2: No the NX does not share the same design elements at all. Its not sleek, its not plastic looking , its not got the "Hey I am from the 60's" style choices or the other workmen and ultra utilitarian design elements.

3: I was speaking of Roddenberry, he tossed the design at his first chance, he never intended to keep it. The design simply does not fit within what came later, it was the first but styles changed and it simply does not fit.

[/QUOTE]
You probably weren't aware of The Cage because it wasn't available. These days it's the very first episode on Netflix, so new fans would most likely be aware of it.
1. He said they're largely the same except for those things, which they are.
2. He specified the design elements the NX-01 borrowed from TOS. The nacelles and deflector are clear throwbacks.
3. Roddenberry had nothing to do with it. Matt Jefferies designed plausible upgrades for the TOS Enterprise and Andy Probert/Richard Taylor turned it into a more extensive redesign.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And once more, this is not "The cage" many have zero clue parts of this come from the failed pilot. I did not for decades, I am pretty sure many who where introduced to trek though the 09 reboot also have no freaking clue. Its not relevent at all. Not like its the first time trek has retconned things.

Others have corrected this but you keep mentioning this. "The Cage" wasn't a failed pilot. If it was there wouldn't be any Star Trek 51 years later and we wouldn't be here having this conversation now.

They are not largely the same. They share a basic shape but the saucer, secondary hull, nacelles, pylons and even texture and detail are not the same at all. A non-trek fan would not recognize those as the same ship. Maybe a class or related classes but its clearly not the same design.

No the NX does not share the same design elements at all. Its not sleek, its not plastic looking , its not got the "Hey I am from the 60's" style choices or the other workmen and ultra utilitarian design elements.

The design history of the Akiraprise is well documented. If you're looking for one ship that doesn't fit your precious Enterprise ship lineage it's that one.

I was speaking of Roddenberry, he tossed the design at his first chance, he never intended to keep it. The design simply does not fit within what came later, it was the first but styles changed and it simply does not fit.

Do you have any source for that claim? Of course you don't because it's not true. You're making this up! Roddenberry "hated" the TOS Enterprise so much that he hired it's designer Matt Jefferies to design also the Phase II Enterprise?!?

 

[Mirror Mirror]

You probably weren't aware of The Cage because it wasn't available. These days it's the very first episode on Netflix, so new fans would most likely be aware of it.
1. He said they're largely the same except for those things, which they are.
2. He specified the design elements the NX-01 borrowed from TOS. The nacelles and deflector are clear throwbacks.
3. Roddenberry had nothing to do with it. Matt Jefferies designed plausible upgrades for the TOS Enterprise and Andy Probert/Richard Taylor turned it into a more extensive redesign.

I had no idea they put the cage on netflix
1: They are the same the way all 4 door cars are the same
2: It had round nacelles and a dish, this is not much in common.
3: who asked for it? And Really this is a new ship, not an "upgrade" its a redesign.

Others have corrected this but you keep mentioning this. "The Cage" wasn't a failed pilot. If it was there wouldn't be any Star Trek 51 years later and we wouldn't be here having this conversation now.







The design history of the Akiraprise is well documented. If you're looking for one ship that doesn't fit your precious Enterprise ship lineage it's that one.



Do you have any source for that claim? Of course you don't because it's not true. You're making this up! Roddenberry "hated" the TOS Enterprise so much that he hired it's designer Matt Jefferies to design also the Phase II Enterprise?!?

1: The cage failed. It did not get green lighted, it went and got a total rework with almost a totally new cast, and massive changes. If it was not a fail, it would have been greenlit.

2: Except, it is now before TOS and as the TOS was always the oddball, now it no longer fits and has not since ENT aired. It was always a bad fit anyhow since TMP rebooted the look, but after ENT it no longer fits at all

3: Roddenberry did not feel beholden to TOS he ignored it when it suited him. someone on here posted a artical once where he almost ruled it non-cannon as he did TAS. And its common sense man. You do not redesign what you like, what you are happy with.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The cage failed. It did not get green lighted, it went and got a total rework with almost a totally new cast, and massive changes. If it was not a fail, it would have been greenlit.

If The Cage had failed it would have been the last we have heard of it. Period. Jeffrey Hunter was asked to return but he couldn't.

Except, it is now before TOS and as the TOS was always the oddball, now it no longer fits and has not since ENT aired. It was always a bad fit anyhow since TMP rebooted the look, but after ENT it no longer fits at all

TOS (and the TOS Enterprise) is so oddball that we've seen it exactly as is in episodes in TNG, DS9 and ENT. Oddball riiiight!

Roddenberry did not feel beholden to TOS he ignored it when it suited him. someone on here posted a artical once where he almost ruled it non-cannon as he did TAS. And its common sense man. You do not redesign what you like, what you are happy with.

Again you're making things up as you go along! Roddenberry never declared TOS as non canon! He hired Matt Jefferies for Phase II and wanted to hire him for TMP also.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

If The Cage had failed it would have been the last we have heard of it. Period. Jeffrey Hunter was asked to return but he couldn't.



TOS (and the TOS Enterprise) is so oddball that we've seen it exactly as is in episodes in TNG, DS9 and ENT. Oddball riiiight!



Again you're making things up as you go along! Roddenberry never declared TOS as non canon! He hired Matt Jefferies for Phase II and wanted to hire him for TMP also.

1: If it had not failed that would be trek, but its not. It LOST to Lost in space for gods sake, they passed it over for another show. So it got retooled and is not the show we ended up with.

2: Yep total lameduck oddball that does not fit and looks out of place and goofy every time it shows up.

3: I never said that, I stated he came close to doing so and did not feel himself bond by it. You are choosing to twist what I have said. And It does not matter who redesigned the ship, the TOS ship died with TOS and was redesigned.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

If it had not failed that would be trek, but its not. It LOST to Lost in space for gods sake, they passed it over for another show. So it got retooled and is not the show we ended up with.

Again you have your facts wrong. Lost In Space was already in development in CBS.

Yep total lameduck oddball that does not fit and looks out of place and goofy every time it shows up.

You've just proved that you're devoid of logical argumentation and are only trolling. End of conversation.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Again you have your facts wrong. Lost In Space was already in development in CBS.



You've just proved that you're devoid of logical argumentation and are only trolling. End of conversation.

If I am wrong on Lost in space I stand corrected

How am I trolling? I am pointing out something you dislike. The TOS Constitution is the design oddball, it does not fit the style of anything that came later, the TMP ships does but not the TOS design and it shows. Once ENT came out and they decided not to use anything even remotely like the TOS primitive design, that killed it and took its place out.

If you do a ship line out, it simply does not fit, its totally out of place and ENT did that. You had some wiggleroom if ENT had not changed the look of anything pre 2280, but once they went with the NX design, it simply wrote out the TOS designs place. The design is simply too dated, too primitive and too much a design of the 60's. You can redesign it, but using it as is just does not work.

 

[cultcross]

Others have corrected this but you keep mentioning this. "The Cage" wasn't a failed pilot.

The fact we didn't follow the adventures of Captain Pike and Number One for three years suggests that it certainly was, only with enough positive aspects and sunk costs to warrant a second go. WNMHGB was the pilot for TOS, and even then there were elements that weren't carried forward, as there were after Encounter at Farpoint too.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The fact we didn't follow the adventures of Captain Pike and Number One for three years suggests that it certainly was. WNMHGB was the pilot for TOS, and even then there were elements that weren't carried forward, as there were after Encounter at Farpoint too.

It's can also be easily argued then that the fact that we did follow the adventures of the USS Enterprise and Spock for three years suggests that it certainly was successful in some degree. The fact that pilot episodes tend to be different than the rest of the series doesn't prove anything conclusively. The aforementioned Lost In Space pilot episode was a lot different in tone to the rest of the series for example. Nobody here argues that it was WNMHGB that ultimately got Star Trek greenlit though if that's what you're suggesting. But Genesis II, The Questor Tapes, Planet Earth, Spectre, Strange New Worlds, those were Roddenberry's failed TV pilots, not The Cage.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk is just Pike with a new name. And Number One is TOS Spock in drag.

 

[Jayson1]

Why can't we see "The Cage" pilot as both a failed pilot but also a successful one. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It failed because the studio didn't greenlight it and make it show but it was a success because it was good enough that they ordered a second pilot which had never been done before and created the same show over again with some tweeks. Plus it was good enough that the first pilot still became part of the show because of "The Menagrie" episodes. There are many different ways to judge if something is a success or failure.

Jason

 

[fireproof78]

Again you have your facts wrong. Lost In Space was already in development in CBS.

Also not %100 accurate. GR was interviewed by CBS and some of his ideas were taken and used in the development of Lost in Space.

As for "The Cage" it was a unique circumstance. The studio didn't feel it would work as a show, but they liked the concept enough and Jeffery Hunter didn't want to stick around-stories have his wife didn't want his star permanently attached to this Trek. So, Shatner.

The studio commissioning a second pilot was a bit more unusual.

 

[uniderth]

Also not %100 accurate. GR was interviewed by CBS and some of his ideas were taken and used in the development of Lost in Space.

As for "The Cage" it was a unique circumstance. The studio didn't feel it would work as a show, but they liked the concept enough and Jeffery Hunter didn't want to stick around-stories have his wife didn't want his star permanently attached to this Trek. So, Shatner.

The studio commissioning a second pilot was a bit more unusual.

I think they mostly didn't like the green dancing woman.

Or maybe they liked her too much.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think they mostly didn't like the green dancing woman.

Or maybe they liked her too much.

Mostly they didn't like Gene's mistress in a key role.