And again, I'd ask... what, specifically, about the TOS design "screams 1960s? Oh, and you're a poster on the TrekBBS... so by any rational argument, you, too, are a "fanboy." Your use of the term is not, therefore, really an ACCURATE term, is it? Instead, you seem to be using the term to attack those who don't agree with you. IE, "fanboy" is your way of belittling those who don't agree with you. I AM looking at it objectively, and further, I'm trying to engage in an OBJECTIVE DISCUSSION, using logic, rationally stated points, and actual ARGUMENTS to support my position. I keep hoping that the other side of the argument will engage in the same sort of an approach. Rather than engaging in personal sniping, I mean. You're talking style. Can you give a reason that would be the case that has some logical support behind it? For the record, "lots of curves" and "lots of detail" is nothing new. Fins and greeblies and so forth don't make for "more advanced." You had that stuff on the 1930s Flash Gordon serials, for cryin' out loud! ST-One has raised the TMP Enterprise as an example of "good change" and (except for the idea that it's the same ship... an idea which is specifically addressed in the script when it's demonstrated that Kirk can't even find his way around inside her, and as Decker says, it's an "almost totally new Enterprise.") I can agree with that in large extent. However, the TMP Enterprise didn't have a "more curved" shape, overall, nor did it have lots of extra detail added to it (in the sense it seems to be addressed here, I mean). The ship was actually quite smooth and enclosed. Again, that's because Probert was actually thinking through WHY things ought to be, not just what they out to look like. Look at real technology. Do you see a car with a perfectly smooth, graceful exterior, compare it to a car covered with all sorts of exposed nuts and so forth, and see the one with "more detail visible" as being more advanced? Further... look at airplanes. Modern aircraft are no more "curvy" than they were in the 1940, 1950s, 1960s...in fact, they're quite a bit LESS so. The same goes for naval vessels. Here's concept art of a new US Navy vessel currently being created. Far from having "more exposed detail," it has a lot less. And that makes it seem MORE advanced, doesn't it? If the audience really felt that way... about style, more than story... "The Phantom Menace" would have been one of the most reknowned films of all time, wouldn't it? I do not accept your proposition that "the audience would laugh." Why not? Because there is NO evidence to that effect. I believe the exact opposite... that if the original design were shown, in high-definition, high-quality images on the big screen, just as we remember it but in such clarity that we can finally see all the fine detail that was never visible on the 320 x 200 TV broadcast... I believe that the audience would GASP. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that they'd laugh. Neither has anything remotely like "proof" behind them. That's why it's OPINION. And that's why I don't argue from that basis... and instead try to argue points that CAN be argued logically and can be taken to some sort of conclusion. I doubt that very much. Does your control room have cables and wiring snaking around, behind every console? The TOS bridge is much CLEANER, isn't it? And isn't it true that "cleaner" typically is associated with "more advanced?" Does everything fit together, as a unified whole... or is your "advanced" control room actually a hodge-podge of slightly similar, but very much distinct, pieces of hardware? Does your control room have rack-mounted equipment, stacked up in columns on frames made from mass-produced aluminum and steel extrusions, rolling around on casters? I'm not saying you don't work in a state-of-the-art facility... only that it's doubtful that your workcenter is REALLY "more advanced looking." A control center, ideally, should be clean, streamlined, and have exactly the controls and displays and so forth required to do the job it's required to do... no more, no less. Now, for the record, I'm not saying that the original set, without alteration, must be used. For example, I've always envisioned the big framed areas above each workstation on the outer ring to be a massive flat display. We just normally see one or two "windows" open on it at any time... but you could have more than that, you could have different background colors, you could have the whole thing displaying data... it would be very flexible. Yet it would still be the same in every meaningful way. Same with the "pegboard" display in Engineering... that might just be one display, representing a wiring schematic, that can be put up on a large wall-sized display panel. You don't have to throw the old away, you can "update" it without contradicting it. There's nothing dated about the designs... the limitations that can, and SHOULD, be addressed are rather those of budget and available technology. But even with that... unless you're one of those "arteeest" types I mentioned earlier (which is, for the record, not the same as an actual ARTIST)... you ought to recognize that the set isn't the core of what matters. If's a place to set action. So if the audience is looking at the set more closely than the actors... you've got a "Star Wars Prequel" situation and you've failed as a storyteller! Do you HONESTLY think that the "wider audience" is going to go to this movie because they want to see what the "newer, cooler Enterprise" is going to look like? That's the sort of thinking that the FANBOYS of which, let's be blunt, YOU ARE ONE, are accused of... isn't it? General audiences will go to this movie to see a good story... or they won't go at all. Most are JUST familiar enough with the designs to know generally what it's supposed to look like, but few know or care about whether the bridge is straight or skewed. They have a mental image and as long as the show doesn't contradict that mental image they already have, they'll be able to stay absorbed in the story. IF IT'S A GOOD STORY. It's ONLY THE "FANBOYS" who are interested in seeing the fine details of the design. And it's only a subset of those who are interested in seeing it change... the subset who think as you seem to, that it's "dated" (without having a clear reason that they can give for WHY it's "dated"). Face facts... you, I, EVERY LAST ONE OF US qualifies as a "fanboy" by virtue of the fact that we joined, and post on, a BBS called the "TrekBBS." If you throw around that sort of thing as an insult... you're really trying to say something else, aren't you? And if the movie is going to rely on a "redesigned Enterprise" to capture an audience... rather than relying on great storytelling... it's already DEAD. A truly well-told story will be successful with what might be considered "sub-standard" effects, and even production design. While a badly told story cannot be saved by "new cool ships with huge 'splosions."
Seven pages on this thread, it has been claimed numerous times, that the original design looked to "old" to be in the movie. And only once the most likely explanation was posted. They don't want people to get the impression, that they just paid ten bucks to see exactly the same as could be seen daily on TV for ten bucks less.
Just to throw in my 2 cents...the basic shape (mostly the secondary hull) was closly inspired by the original Jefferies design (actually the "Gus 1701" side view) to get the basic angles and proportions. I think the neck especially mirrors this. As for the deflector assembly, the deep cut fan-tail, and certaily the humped-up/shark-fin nacelles, I was thinking, while messing with it, that they could simply uncouple these assemblies and install newer modules, which could more resemble the lines of the TOS ship. Perhaps this represented a burst of incremental, technological developments and "minor" modular refits. (?) Honestly, I simply used the trailer shots, and text descriptions which alluded to "bigger/aerodynamic/organic" nacelles, "a bigger bite out of the secondary hull", and "the rest of the ship looked like a combination of TOS and TMP Enterprise" to conjure this up. (The "TMP" references convinced me to add the neck photon torpedo structure, and the "flux chiller"? black square things under the nacelle humps.) Personally I never liked the photon torpedo thing on the neck, but it did look cool in ST:TWOK! Just my thoughts. And thank you again to everyone for the compliments and suggestions.
Are we talking about the same TMP-Enterprise here? Because the refit I saw in 'The Motion Picture' most definitely had more curves that the original design. The whole shape of the saucer and engineering section are much more round on the refit. The warp drive nacelles are a combination of different shapes. And even the 'neck' is curved (on the starboard and port sides of the hull). The detail work on the refit is (compared to the original) quite 'exessive'... So (as is the case with this new design) the refit is vastly different from her predecessor in appearance and yet they represent the same ship. TMP was a reboot, one that you can accept and even manage (as the rest of us) to work into the continuity. But this new reboot you cannot accept? Even though the design elements we have been shown so far (the parts of the ship, the corridor image, the shuttle) are closer to the TOS designs than anything we have seen in TMP (and that one is supposed to play only two or so years after the end of TOS)?
I must say I'm more than impressed with the work you pressent us here with But there is one thing that jumps to my eye which I do not like: The Franz Joseph-'dent' on the underside of the engineering hull... not good, IMO
The size of the "bite"/cut-up to the rear? Yeah, that does seem extreme doesn't it. Plus, it really eats into any shuttlebay/workspace area, compared to the extensive deckplan conjecture in some other threads. That part really bugged me after looking at those. Yeah, that does need fixed
I can say it with a straight face because it's TRUE. J.J. and gang are picking and choosing what they want and ignoring the rest to start from scratch to reboot the property. And I don't care if 5 billion people think, "Hey, that looks about right." If it's wrong, it's wrong. But we're arguing a moot point. As a reboot they can do whatever they want and not be contradicting anything previously established because it's not in continuity with the original. But I would argue that it's still corrupting some other aspects of TOS. The ship in the Trek XI teaser looks like something a goth would design and doesn't look like the product of a future society of idealism of aspirations and optimism. It's reflecting something of the cynicism of today. And it's visually consistent with the industrial dark gray piece of shit that was the NX-01. And aspiring to something better and optimism is an integral part of TOS. But I'm not really surprised to see it jettisoned. But there is something else at play here and it may be generational. For a lot of TOS fans the Enterprise mattered as something more than just a piece of sci-fi hardware. It wasn't just another disposable Star Wars type thing or nearly any other bit of tech that has been rolled out in Trek since the '80s. The Enterprise was as important as Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock and the rest of the cast. The TOS E was a physical representation of so much of what we loved about Star Trek. To drastically change it is to tamper with a core element of Star Trek's appeal for many of us. It's a work of fiction, but the TOS creators did such a damned fine job of making it seem real that for many fans it pretty much is real. Many of us had lumps in our throat when the refit E was destroyed in TSFS. But people were actually cheering and saying things like, "Aw, kewl." when the 1701-D was wrecked. Why? Because the producers saw it only as a piece of disposable hardware unlike the original and that was conveyed to the audience. Too bad really because while I never much cared for the 1701-D it was a helluva lot better than the 1701-E-yuch. We argue about the TOS E because she matters to us and represents much of what we loved about Star Trek. TPTB have corrupted so much of what we loved about the show that this is the last bloody straw. It's probably part of the reason I and many others continue--decades after the fact--to try to flesh out aspects of TOS to make them seem even more believable. The TOS tech says something to us that little Trek tech since ever has.
I agree with that too- it seems a little stretched out. Have you considered taking the original series Enterprise and try giving it the details to make it movie presentable? Tweaking some bits for detail- using the same detail oriented idea as the trailer Enterprise maybe? Doing so without changing the overall design of the ship. The remastered series has attempted it, but it doesn't look like it would cut it- but I think it's because the CGI isn't movie grade (it's barely TV grade for that matter).
No, that is not the part I meant. I actually like this larger/extended cut-out... I meant THAT little 'dent': It looks ugly and totally destroys the flow of the hull's shape... (IMO)
It's more than that. And hello, a starship is going to be assembled in orbit and not on the freakin' ground.
Is an ocean-liner going to be assebled ON the ocean? And please explain how it is 'more than that'. I see some 'retro'-elements on the parts we have seen of this redesign but nothing that says 'goth'...
It's the whole tone of the thing. And use some common sense. An ocean liner isn't the same as a starship. You just slide a liner into the water. You don't have to lift the thing up into orbit. The Enterprise was not designed to enter an atmosphere so why the hell would you build it whole on the ground? No, you can build parts on the ground and lift them to orbit for final assembly.
The show us some of that tone. And what in the trailer tells you that this is not how it was done? And, btw, that trailer and the whole 'under construction' theme has quite probably more to do with the making of the movie itselft than anything the movie is about.
And we have seen no evidence to say that is not what is going on, building the sub-assemblies on the ground, and lifting them into orbit later. Besides, the whole construction scene might not even be in the movie, so there is no point getting worked up over it. And the trailer looked like something a goth would design...it's because it was at NIGHT! Its gonna be dark.
I'm not the one who said the scene was set at night. That implied that the ship was being constructed on the ground. I'm saying that even assuming the ship is actually being built in orbit that the whole tone of the teaser is dark and gray and depressing. It shows a welder that could have stepped out of the 1940s. It doesn't show anything that says this is distinctly futuristic. It looks like an ENT promo. You guys are defending it primarily because you like it and it works for you. That's fine. But don't waste your breathe trying to convince me I'm not seeing something that is or isn't there. I'm a reasonably perceptive person and what I see is that the whole tone of the thing jars with an overall sensibility we got from TOS. It's just another one of those things that tells me that this is distinctly disconnected from TOS.
It is a promotional teaser trailer we are talking about. This thing has to sell that there is a new movie in the making. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in this trailer shows what kind of tone we have the expect in May '09. It is dark (at night) because that is how those sparks look the best (contrast, anyone?). That trailer is positively anacronistic in the way it shows the Enterprise being built. But since this thing is not actually part of what we all call Star Trek (it is a fucking teaser trailer!) it can be taken in good fun, looked at for the beautiful images and only being understood as: The movie is 'under construction'. Nothing more, nothing less. Except for that message and the new look of the Enterprise (perhaps) nothing in this trailer can or ever should be taken as part of the Star Trek canon.
As a teaser trailer it should elicit interest to see more. The original teaser for the forthcoming Wall-E is an excellent example. But that is bolstered by Pixar's overall excellent track record for delivering quality entertainment. The Trek XI teaser turns me off. It doesn't resonate one bit with what I associate with the most successful and most recognized Star Trek series. It evokes the sensibility of the most failed series: ENT. In my book that's a poor promotional teaser. Instead of generating overwhelming excitement and interest it's generating dissent and rancor.
It may be breeding dissent among the fanbase (when has that never happened before ), but that trailer was marketed to those who have never seen Star Trek. The whole idea was to hook them with some interesting imagery, so people go ooo, and ahh, and at the end go...but hey it's STAR TREK. I would say it worked because multiple people I have talked to, people I know, who are not Star Trek fans in the slightest, liked the teaser, and now want to see the film specifically because it did NOT look like Star Trek. I am not saying that this film will look like TOS, cause it shouldnt, apples and oranges, but as long as it has the spirit of TOS and a good story, I am satisfied.
Yes. One exists, the other doesn't. And people complaining that a fake bolt on a fake ship shouldn't be there because it serves no purpose are kidding themselves because the whole thing is fake. "The intercoolers serve a purpose" No they don't.