ST XI Enterprise conjecture
- Thread starter judexavier
- Start date
I get the uncomfortable feeling that I'm hanging out with nerds. Does that mean I am also...SONOFABITCH! 
I've seen two real 'sides' to this whole windy discussion, the first being Cary's position that the ship design is not outdated, and the other being the notion that the design should be changed because today's audience won't accept the old design.
I agree to some extent with both. But there are a few posters here that I really agree with, those arguing less from their nerd hearts and more from the bussiness side: The design of the old ship is not dated, but it needs to be replaced anyway.
The old ship looks fine. The remastered episodes, and DS9's Trials & Tribble-ations proved that the ship looks majestic even in HD. But it's been around for 40+ years. Abrams cannot afford to use the same designs that have been in reruns for 40 years, that's not how you make a movie with $170 million dollars.
Frankly, he can afford to make massive changes because for 99% of the audience, changes = something new to see, and they are where the money is, not a bunch of 50 year old TOS fans debating the use of welding torches in the movie teaser. Those casual shmucks, not smart or stupid enough to care about the technicalities, do not want to see something that looks exactly like the reruns they've seen for the past 40 years. Chances are, they don't want to see Star Trek at all. They want to see Abram's latest blockbuster movie.
We hardcores still have our TOS and fanon though, so no need to panic. And Abram's design, while different, is clearly based on the original.
Far be it for me to claim to have more experience than you building starships in an economical manner, but TOS clearly established that the Enterprise could easily enter and operate in Earth's atmosphere without shields, or even main power. Just ask Christopher and his airforce jet.
The simple fact is, you may not like it, but it's canon. TOS canon. We saw them fly in the atmosphere, and it's right there on the plaque. It was built on Earth, at least partly.
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine, the whole notion that orbital construction has some sort of technical validity is a false one, imo.
REGARDING PIXEL's cgi start, it looks good so far, I really wish I could model more than textureless blocks, so it's impressive to me, anyway. Looking forward to see how the ship looks in actual 3D.
I've seen two real 'sides' to this whole windy discussion, the first being Cary's position that the ship design is not outdated, and the other being the notion that the design should be changed because today's audience won't accept the old design.
I agree to some extent with both. But there are a few posters here that I really agree with, those arguing less from their nerd hearts and more from the bussiness side: The design of the old ship is not dated, but it needs to be replaced anyway.
The old ship looks fine. The remastered episodes, and DS9's Trials & Tribble-ations proved that the ship looks majestic even in HD. But it's been around for 40+ years. Abrams cannot afford to use the same designs that have been in reruns for 40 years, that's not how you make a movie with $170 million dollars.
Frankly, he can afford to make massive changes because for 99% of the audience, changes = something new to see, and they are where the money is, not a bunch of 50 year old TOS fans debating the use of welding torches in the movie teaser. Those casual shmucks, not smart or stupid enough to care about the technicalities, do not want to see something that looks exactly like the reruns they've seen for the past 40 years. Chances are, they don't want to see Star Trek at all. They want to see Abram's latest blockbuster movie.
We hardcores still have our TOS and fanon though, so no need to panic. And Abram's design, while different, is clearly based on the original.
Far be it for me to claim to have more experience than you building starships in an economical manner, but TOS clearly established that the Enterprise could easily enter and operate in Earth's atmosphere without shields, or even main power. Just ask Christopher and his airforce jet.
The simple fact is, you may not like it, but it's canon. TOS canon. We saw them fly in the atmosphere, and it's right there on the plaque. It was built on Earth, at least partly.
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine, the whole notion that orbital construction has some sort of technical validity is a false one, imo.
REGARDING PIXEL's cgi start, it looks good so far, I really wish I could model more than textureless blocks, so it's impressive to me, anyway. Looking forward to see how the ship looks in actual 3D.
I wonder if the engines are so huge because they are in a protective aerodynamic shell, at least until the rest of the ship is finished? It occurs to me that the engines are probably the most important and perhaps delicate part of the ship, so maybe they want to protect it from damage and to streamline the structure (hence, the fins) until it is hoisted into space.
Oh, and by the way, that is fantastic work, judexavier!! Can't believe you did that in Photoshop.
Oh, and by the way, that is fantastic work, judexavier!! Can't believe you did that in Photoshop.
Last edited:
Judexavier, it's a shame to see you moving on. I'd love to see you continue to refine this fantastic image ... although I haven't a clue how you could improve it more. Although I'd be reluctant to accept it instead of the original design.
Like Cary, I'm a huge fan of the original. For several years, I preferred The Motion Picture's refit, but as time went by, I found myself drifting back to the classic version. I'm still hoping to see that ship on screen next May ... a ship that could easily pass for the original on a 1968 color TV, but in the movie theater becomes much more detailed and interesting close up. Not aztecing, per se, at least not all over the hull. But more details that suggest how the ship might be put together in other ways. Frames around the windows. Imperfections in the hull finish. Details hidden under grating. A ship that stirs every classic fan's heart as soon as we see it, but gets more and more real as it gets closer to the screen.
As far as the ship looking out-dated ... hmmm. That's a tough call. I don't see the ship as being out-dated at all; it's a classic. Like a '57 Chevy or a '69 Mustang. Like the Mach 5. But I'm willing to concede that that is an entirely subjective viewpoint. So all I ask is for people who see it as out-dated to explain why it's out-dated. Is the whole design flawed by time, or just parts of it? If the latter, which parts?
I bet even Cary would change his mind in the face of a well-reasoned argument. He strikes me as that kind of a fellow ... adamant in his beliefs, but open to reason.
Like Cary, I'm a huge fan of the original. For several years, I preferred The Motion Picture's refit, but as time went by, I found myself drifting back to the classic version. I'm still hoping to see that ship on screen next May ... a ship that could easily pass for the original on a 1968 color TV, but in the movie theater becomes much more detailed and interesting close up. Not aztecing, per se, at least not all over the hull. But more details that suggest how the ship might be put together in other ways. Frames around the windows. Imperfections in the hull finish. Details hidden under grating. A ship that stirs every classic fan's heart as soon as we see it, but gets more and more real as it gets closer to the screen.
As far as the ship looking out-dated ... hmmm. That's a tough call. I don't see the ship as being out-dated at all; it's a classic. Like a '57 Chevy or a '69 Mustang. Like the Mach 5. But I'm willing to concede that that is an entirely subjective viewpoint. So all I ask is for people who see it as out-dated to explain why it's out-dated. Is the whole design flawed by time, or just parts of it? If the latter, which parts?
I bet even Cary would change his mind in the face of a well-reasoned argument. He strikes me as that kind of a fellow ... adamant in his beliefs, but open to reason.
How about one last time, with a few changes. The inter-fin-coolers are tilted back and resized. I think I fixed that random hull countour on the bottom. Finally, exposed turbines as in the trailer, and prototype markings...
The unseen beginnings of the Constitution perhaps?
(At least it's not the Enterprise anymore)
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXINCC-1701Side-Front03FLAT.jpg
Oh, and my little cobbled-together take on the shuttle; as goofy as this looks, I was suprised when the spy pics came out with top-mounted engines too.
Anyway, time to start working on something completely different.
Do you happen to have the reference pic of the shuttle? It looks a great deal different than the original shuttle.
Honestly, I think they were just pushed together and exaggerated in size to make the framing for the teaser look better. I'm sure that that the final version will look like the schematic where the engines were altered to more-or-less their original proportions.
The TOS Enterprise was designed in the '60s, which makes it a classic '60s design (arguably THE classic '60s design). Since ST 11 is set about ten years or so before TOS, that would make the ST 11 Enterprise a '50s design...
This goes a long way towards explaining why the warp nacelles have those REALLY BIG TAILFINS...
This goes a long way towards explaining why the warp nacelles have those REALLY BIG TAILFINS...
Actually, I agree with this entirely.
Some of the folks in here have done some rendering work... one of the things you realize once you've done a bit of that is that you seldom render an entire scene in one pass. My guess is that they rendered the nacelle in one pass, the saucer in another, the scaffolding in yet another... and so on. Then did all sorts of compositing work to put it all together into a cool-looking sequence.
Sometimes you "cheat" perspective, to get the right effect. It was very clear that the shot was done so that you wouldn't know what you were seeing, and the "big reveal" would all happen within a second or so... as I suggested before any of us had seen the trailer, the whole point of a GOOD trailer would be to get the audience excited about something that they didn't recognize, and at the end spring it on them that "that looks so cool, I've gotta see that... hey, WAIT A MINUTE, is that actually STAR TREK???"
The trailer was very successful from that standpoint. Yes, I'm unhappy about what seem to be some rather silly changes to the design, but that's a personal thing. The trailer, overall, did the job I thought it needed to do.
Most members of the audience don't realize, or care, about the technical underpinnings of the design (both the originally-intended ones and the ones that have become accepted by the fans over 40+ years of Trek history). So unless it really looks dramatically different, and without justification, most people won't care. I think that, deep down, everyone in the conversation recognizes and accepts that.
Good storytelling = good movie. Bad storytelling = bad movie.
Good design = HELP to the movie. Bad design = injury to the movie. But design will not make, or break, it. It's ultimately set-dressing, after all...
TrekBBS is the only place where you can really even discuss this sort of thing and find people who'll treat it seriously. That's why I freakin' COME here... because there are other folks here who are interested in it (whether they agree with my take or not!). So when someone comes into a conversation and says "you people are stupid for talking about this, just shut up!" I find that pretty obnoxious. If I wanted to talk about something else, I'd do it in REAL LIFE, with the "normal" people I know!
But to the topic at hand... I don't dislike the design I've been shown, overall. If we were seeing a TNG-era ship, for instance, that had the same general proportions as the TOS Enterprise (something I've always wanted to see anyway!), or perhaps a precursor to the Constitution-class, I'd be PERFECTLY content with what we're seeing (though I'd still argue that design elements without any evident LOGIC, whether based upon "real science" or "made-up science" based, behind them are BAD design elements!)
I just don't like the fact that it SEEMS to be presented to us as "well, this is the Enterprise. Your memory is wrong. Forget what you know. Oh, and by the way, America didn't break away from Britain, it broke away from Denmark... and George Washington wasn't the first President, it was really Yule Brynner... oh, and the Revolutionary war was fought with F-14 Tomcats, armed with plasma cannon... (etc, etc)
I know the phoney counterargument I'm going to receive on that point... I've heard it (from the same half-dozen people) many times. "But Star Trek isn't real, so you can do anything you want." Yes, it's not real. No, you can't do anything you want... not and have it remain "Star Trek."
If you do "anything you want" you may make something great... maybe something BETTER than "Star Trek." But it won't BE "Star Trek." Anymore than the new Battlestar Galactica is the same show as the original Battlestar Galactica. Better or worse, it's NOT the same show.
I agree with this entirely, and would add setting to design as an important element to the success of any story. It is very difficult for a flawed story to rise above its flaws, regardless of how strong its design and other efforts at building verisimilitude are. There are exceptions to this, however. TMP is one of the very few films that manage to accomplish this, but only because the story, though flawed, managed to be distinctly TOS in style and yet epic in scope. The story was just good enough, and tried so hard, that the stunning visuals and concepts buoyed the entire project and make it continually fascinating to watch and ponder.
OTOH, TWOK was a much tighter and more dramatic story that despite being a sequel to an episode, lacked the feeling of awe that characterized much of TOS. Awe was replaced with a kind of tired fear that reared its head time and again, from phasering the Ceti eel to the tentative steps taken in combatting Khan. That and the low regard given to building a plausible science fiction scenario and setting, so weakened the resulting film that I have no interest in seeing it anymore. From a design standpoint, the only thing to emerge from it worth remembering was the Reliant, and so much from the first film and TOS was lost that regret overwhelms any enjoyment I might get from the tight story.
Which is just a guess until you actually see the movie like the rest of us.The rendering looks pretty accurate to me, which is to say that it looks just as hideous as what we saw in the trailer.
Frankly, I wonder what sort of mindset it takes to say that the bloated monstrosity from the trailer is the same ship as this...
(Pay no attention to the Firefly class ship trailing along behind; they just took a wrong turn.)
Get over it and stop whining (it gets annoying) - they changed the design.
Exactly. This version replaces the original version for the purpose of future movies (and television shows if any).
This design could be from some tempory alternate timeline as rumored.
How about one last time, with a few changes. The inter-fin-coolers are tilted back and resized. I think I fixed that random hull countour on the bottom. Finally, exposed turbines as in the trailer, and prototype markings...
The unseen beginnings of the Constitution perhaps?
(At least it's not the Enterprise anymore)
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXINCC-1701Side-Front03FLAT.jpg
Oh, and my little cobbled-together take on the shuttle; as goofy as this looks, I was suprised when the spy pics came out with top-mounted engines too.
Anyway, time to start working on something completely different.
This is gorgeous work, and probably closer to what the Enterprise will look like from now on than anyone else has gotten. I suspect that there will eventually be translucent domes over those blades in front of the nacelles, though.
Well, the only thing we know for sure about about the ancient past in the Trek universe is that the English won the hundred years war.
Thats why Frenchmen in Trek speak with an english accent...
(Sorry for getting OT here, but that joke just had to be made)
How does that apply to the fact that they're recasting the ship, but not that they're recasting the characters? Shouldn't one change in appearance be just as damning as another?
And furthermore, weren't they accusing us of having lying eyes and faulty memories way back in the sixties, when the pilot and series versions of the ship were used interchangeably throughout the show?
Whatever people think about this design relative to the original, it's beautiful in it's own right - the work is top-notch judexavier. 
(don't think that's been said enough amongst all the other nattering). The only thing I do wonder about is if you've incorporated what I took, in the trailer, to be a row of construction lights on some sort of scaffold along the inboard nacelle "grilles" into the engines themselves (a point of little consequence as it is your take on this and looks more interesting anyway).
Great looking shuttle - would a top/front view be possible before you "move on" mate?
(don't think that's been said enough amongst all the other nattering). The only thing I do wonder about is if you've incorporated what I took, in the trailer, to be a row of construction lights on some sort of scaffold along the inboard nacelle "grilles" into the engines themselves (a point of little consequence as it is your take on this and looks more interesting anyway).Great looking shuttle - would a top/front view be possible before you "move on" mate?
Yep.
There's no reason to conflate actual history and fantasy, either - none at all. Despite repeated insistence otherwise, redesigning the look of a make-believe spaceship is not equivalent in any way to screwing with historic fact like Washington, etc (not that movies and TV don't successfully do that as well, in the process of entertaining people).
The Enterprise looks different because "Star Trek" is being redesigned and everything will look different - some of it close enough to make some people more comfortable and some of it different enough that everyone is going to be surprised. This is a new version of the story.
DeMille's 1923 Egypt didn't look all that much like his 1956 Egypt, either. One, after all, was in black-and-white.
Really awesome artwork, but...is that what the engines are going to look like in the new movie? I don't know if I'm really cool with that. I generally don't care about what goes on plotwise, but those engines look a lot different from what the original show had.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
DeMille's 1923 Egypt didn't look all that much like his 1956 Egypt, either. One, after all, was in black-and-white.
Funny. I just finished watching the 1956 version on DVD a few moments ago
DeMille's 1923 Egypt didn't look all that much like his 1956 Egypt, either. One, after all, was in black-and-white.
Funny. I just finished watching the 1956 version on DVD a few moments ago
I love that movie - there is some classic schlock piety in it. My favorite moment is Yul Brynner's delivery of the line "His god is God." I hope that writer got an award.
PixelMagic, can't wait for this! I have no 3D skill to speak of, so I really looking forward to seeing some of the lens effects and view angles, to try to figure out what they are actually doing (especially with those engine rib/nodule things).
Very nice, I like that shuttle. I am currently practicing my 3D modeling skills on the original TOS Enterprise. As soon as I'm done with it, I'll start trying to model yours. I should be done with the TOS version this weekend. Here is where I'm at now...
Thanks Tom Servo! It's really a combination of "tricks" I've picked up over the years. (Using layer combinations, LOTS of layers in general, making the image really BIG at first to start with, to minimise the crappy raster fuzziness, etc.)
The paneling layer was made from another file that was nothing but copy/pasted rectangular areas, some with slight random gradients. (Overall they were all gray and only a *slight* contrast difference). Over this were what I call the primary "dark lines" and that layer was copied, invernted to be "light" and moved underneath the dark lines. Then, (based on planned light direction) that was clicked down and over a few pixels, to make a fake "bevel/imboss" look.
It's nice to keep them seperate, so you can use your masks or dodge/burn tools to tweak all the line work from being too intense.
Anyway, then over this was a layer of (multiply) shading, using the "dark/main" lines to select certain areas.
Over this, the high light were actually a layer set to "color dodge" mode, using a really light gray/blue, which really plays with contrast, and seemed to bring out the "metallic panel lines" on that bottom flat panel layer.
And there was a upper layer that used layer blending mode to only colorize the lightest panels...this gave that weird "anodized" look. Stumbled on that by accident.
There were ofcourse a million other "correction" layers and layers for "windows and airlocks" and soforth, but for the most part, that's how it broke down. One thing, alot of the "noodley" detail things weren't so ambitious with the bigger initial file sizes. Gives you some room to play around with things.
A big concession I had to make was, when these files were getting 250+ meg and my old PC was almost unusable, I would crop small sections that were screwed up or needed tweaked, work on those, and then "cheat", merge and paste those into layers on top of the original bigger images...
So it's basically a mess, as far as "organization" goes...oh well.
(One simple thing that really bugged me were the panel shapes on the top saucer...then I remembered polar coordinates, copied 1/4 good area, and flipped that around a few times into a symetrical "fake aztec" look.)
I hope that makes some sense.
And thanks again for the compliments!