Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

[shatastrophic]

The newest Batmobile in the Nolan series wasn't designed to be a Batmobile in the first place. It was designed to jump rivers and such to create bridges. An extremely sturdy vehicle that can take a beating on impact and carry a payload. Fox stated in the Dark Knight "We could never get the bridge to work, but this girl works just fine." or something to that effect. It just so happens that if used properly it can evade city police and catch bad guys, jumping on rooftops and crashing through walls instead of jumping rivers. The Tim Burton Batmobile, and all of the others were designed to be Batmobiles. Hell in the new Nolan movies nobody ever even referes to it as the Batmobile, they call it it's given project name the Tumbler.
Same thing with the suit, it was designed to protect soldiers. All Bale's Wayne did was add the cowl to represent the symbol of Bats, other than that nothing.
It was stated earlier that West's Batman was designed for camp. Nobody for a sec took Batman seriously when it aired, it was entertaining though. Same with the Burton and Shumacher films, which were over the top and cartoonish in ways. The Nolan films are a recreation but also an attempt to shed the camp and comic feel of Batman. Maybe not for the audience to take seriously, but to see how it could happen in as realistic of a way as possible. It's funny that we compare the 2, Batman and Star Trek. I have never thought of Trek as campy, but Shatner and the originals have been called that. I think that Sci-Fi back then was all considered campy even if it wasn't meant to be. I think TOS got a bad wrap because of shows like the 60's Batman series.
Now we have the new Trek movie coming out and Abrams has said some things concerning that he is eliminating that campy feel of the TOS. The original Batman series was campy and designed to be, so I really like and appreciate the treatment the new Nolan movies have given Batman. However, like I said earlier i never thought of the original Trek as campy. It was just a product of the times and now that it's old it's easliy mistaken for something it's not. I think because of this Abrams is trying to fix something that isn't broke. He's trying to do with Trek what Nolan did do for Batman but in the process Batman needed it, Trek doesn't.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

Blah, blah,blah...

Change can be good.... or change can be BAD. The only thing that is sure is that "change is change."

If you really want to talk about "what Batman should look like" go back to the ORIGINAL version... here's the very first appearance:
http://upintheskycomics.com/detective27.gif

or go for the "Denny O'Neil" version which came out at roughly the same time as the TV show... just a couple of years later, taking Batman back to his "serious" roots again...

The point some of you guys want to make is "change is always equal to improvement." But the 1960's Batman you should is a CHANGE to the original version... and later versions improved by GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL IDEA.

Change is NOT equal to "improvement."

 

[Shikarnov]

It's nice but i believe that even that image has been slightly redesigned. No rotating/fashing nacelle caps, windows on the hull (I never saw windows in tos). I think the rear portions of the nacelles were also redone, so actually, I think you're trying to prove no redesign is needed ... by redesigning. Thus your point is negated.

Gabe Koerner's version was a redesign. Vektor's added some texture and minor details. I wouldn't consider his a redesign in the same vein that we're discussing Batmobile changes.

And in TOS, the Enterprise had windows (link, link, link).

Cheers,

J

 

[The]

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.

So, you haven't liked any Trek since TOS?

 

[The]

But the 1960's Batman you should is a CHANGE to the original version... and later versions improved by GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL IDEA.

Actually, the original, Golden Age Batman is, in character, best exemplified by Keaton's silent psycho from the 1989 movie. The Christian Bale interpretation is more of the O'Neil/Neal Adams inspired gothic-realism of the Bronze Age, with West, Kilmer, and Clooney encapsulating the goofy 50's era of Batman...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

No, I've liked some of it--a (very) little TNG, most of DS9, a couple of post-TWOK movies. But none of that has been so good to justify the devotion I gave it. I never missed an episode of TNG until 1992, largely out of "loyalty" I felt to TOS, the show I loved so much as a kid. I tuned out of DS9 early, then tuned back in and tried to get caught up on all that I missed. As much as I liked it, it was at best second-rate tv, never holding a candle to the shows I consider great. Had it not had the words Star Trek in the title and taken place in that ostensible universe, I never would have watched at all. (I don't watch the Stargates, tuned out of Babylon 5 early and had to be convinced that NuBSG was as good as Time and Rolling Stone says it is--it's not, but in a world without The Sopranos or The Wire, it and Mad Men will have to do.) Voyager and Enterprise? Simply awful--not simply as Star Trekl but as television.

At this point, being a fan is counter-productive to getting good entertainment. I'm far more excited about Watchmen, say, than I am about Star Trek. Like money, too much bad Trek eventually drives out the good.

 

[The]

At this point, being a fan is counter-productive to getting good entertainment. I'm far more excited about Watchmen, say, than I am about Star Trek. Like money, too much bad Trek eventually drives out the good.

Ah, okay, I'm glad you extrapolated for me. I actually agree with a lot of what you said (beyond what I quoted). However, do you think it's reasonable to compare shows as skillful as The Wire or BSG to something like Star Trek? Aren't there varying degrees of entertainment to be gained from different types of shows? Is it reasonable to scale the measurement for all visual media at baseline? Or, is this more of just a personal attitude on your part, versus an implied universal template as I originally read it?

 

[M'Sharak]

...

If you really want to talk about "what Batman should look like" go back to the ORIGINAL version... here's the very first appearance:
http://upintheskycomics.com/detective27.gif

...

Cary, as that image does not appear to reside on webspace belonging to you, I have converted it to a link. Please refer to the Announcement thread appearing at the top of this forum, where the TrekBBS rules concerning hotlinked images are addressed. ("Don't do it" would work as a pretty good rule of thumb.)

This particular image is also a somewhat larger file size (263.04 Kb) than we'd like to see posted inline outside of the Art Forum or threads specifically identified as image-heavy or containing large images. Please try to keep the total under 70 Kb per post.

Thanks,
M'

Edit:

Bashir007, same words regarding image file size - a couple of those are a bit large.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It's all personal, I guess. The way I see it, TOS was just about state-of-the art for what it did: it was just about as serious a show as the other dramas of its time while being the first show to seriously grapple, week after week, with a mostly coherent space opera setting. It was revolutionary and, I submit, responsible for the a great deal of the mainstreaming of SF that is all through our cultures, high and low. And even then, only about a third of its episode were of the of the quality that makes me say, to this day, "My God, but I love that show!" TMP and TWOK each had a measure of that but after them, Trek became "product" and rarely showed real inspiration. As a fan, I was willing to blind myself to that--I adored TSFS and TUC, for example, when they hit theatres but can barely watch them today.

But yes, I did derive a lot of enjoyment from DS9. Hell, back in college, I got a big kick out of TNG episodes I cannot tolerate today. And I was abou 9 years old when I first became a Trekkie--no doubt, I'll be more kind to stuff from back then out of nostalgia. But I can't ramp up that passion for Trek anymore, nor do I think I should try. For a while I was here, fighting the good or not-so-good fight against the overly optimistic projections but I can't really get it up for that any more, either. This next movie is just a movie, it'll suck or not suck on its merits. I just hope I can judge it thusly.

 

[The]

It's all personal, I guess. The way I see it, TOS was just about state-of-the art for what it did: it was just about as serious a show as the other dramas of its time while being the first show to seriously grapple, week after week, with a mostly coherent space opera setting. It was revolutionary and, I submit, responsible for the a great deal of the mainstreaming of SF that is all through our cultures, high and low. And even then, only about a third of its episode were of the of the quality that makes me say, to this day, "My God, but I love that show!" TMP and TWOK each had a measure of that but after them, Trek became "product" and rarely showed real inspiration. As a fan, I was willing to blind myself to that--I adored TSFS and TUC, for example, when they hit theatres but can barely watch them today.

But yes, I did derive a lot of enjoyment from DS9. Hell, back in college, I got a big kick out of TNG episodes I cannot tolerate today. And I was abou 9 years old when I first became a Trekkie--no doubt, I'll be more kind to stuff from back then out of nostalgia. But I can't ramp up that passion for Trek anymore, nor do I think I should try. For a while I was here, fighting the good or not-so-good fight against the overly optimistic projections but I can't really get it up for that any more, either. This next movie is just a movie, it'll suck or not suck on its merits. I just hope I can judge it thusly.

You have a lot more passion and respect for TOS than I do. But, then again, I never examined it from the angles you present. I think, though, that I respect it for exactly those same reasons, whether I ever had the kind of passion you did. My Trek passion is reserved for TNG, as it was my first foray into the Trek universe. So, nostalgia won't even play a part with me, concerning this movie.

Still, your fandom path and mine are eerily similiar, and I think it's that which caught my eye about your post. I, too, have no great passion for the upcoming movie. I'm just ready to see some spectacle. I don't believe it will have the heart that those early Treks ever did. I think it will be a fun, modern, open-to-newcomers action flick, with a spoon of Trekkie nostalgia for The Fans. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess I'm of the opinion that it's nearly impossible for the corporate machine of Hollywood to produce anything nearing a form of "art". I believe something like this film, which is being created to appeal to a wide-demographic, can be nothing more than 'product'.

But, I'm willing to be proven incorrect. Thanks for the quick reply...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Thanks for the thoughtful questions and responses!

Let's hope this movie rocks.

 

[Classic Fan]

Heres the defintive 89-92 Batmobile info.

Taken from the special edition dvd release.



Its a good watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSNO7LL_L3Y

 

[MisterPL]

What about when the Yoda puppet was redesigned from Episode V to Episode I? Was that a good thing?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

What about when the Yoda puppet was redesigned from Episode V to Episode I? Was that a good thing?

Well, the answer to that is self-contained in what Yoda looks like in Eps 2 and 3.

 

[gastrof]

I'm sorry, but I don't think comparing the 1960s BATMAN show with current movies is a fair comparison, or representative of what's happening with STAR TREK.

The BATMAN TV show wasn't a serious story. It was meant to be an ongoing joke. Every episode was done tongue in cheek.

The current movies are done in the more serious tone of the comicbooks (in particular with how the books have been in recent years).

Still, even with Batman, I think a virtual TANK as the Batmobile is going too far. The car's usually depicted in the comics as a useable automobile, albeit often with "hidden extras".

But I digress...

Star Trek, while "meant to sell toothpaste", has always been taken as serious by its fans.

In the ENTERPRISE two-parter "In a Mirror, Darkly", modern TREK characters were seen on sets built to duplicate the ones from the original STAR TREK.

It worked PERFECTLY.

To compare Shatner's Kirk's Enterprise with the TV Batmobile and so claim it needs to be updated to look "acceptable" just isn't valid.

The original Enterprise looked fine, and could be used in a current production.

Really...

How many of you would have turned up your nose if the original designs had been kept in JJ's film?

You'd have gone to see the movie. You KNOW you would. You'd probably even be a little on the "giddy" side...which you usually look down on us "traditionalists" for being.

We'd ALL have loved it if the original STAR TREK had been restored, with only new actors playing the roles.

Why would the way the Enterprise looks, inside or out, or props like communicators, affect your enjoyment of the story?

You say that to us "don't change anything!" people, so it should be all right for one of us to say it to you guys who insist "change is good".

Would it have been so bad to recreate ALL the sets as they were, all the props, etc, and just have changed the characters' faces?

I seriously doubt even people who aren't Trek fans would have stayed away just because the original look was kept.

After all, you guys keep saying "It's the story telling that's important".

The look didn't HAVE TO be changed.

The fact that some of it has (to an unknown degree, at this point, tho the uniform spoilers give some hope), well...okay. It's done. I'm still going to the film, and any sequels.

But to say it HAD to be changed, and to compare the original Enterprise to the TV Batmobile as proof that change was NEEDED?

Uh-uh.

No way.

Shatner's Kirk's Enterprise would still have flown today, and if the ship IS going to look fairly close to the original, this suggests that really no changes were desperately needed. The original was NOT comparable to the TV Batmobile. Whole 'nother situation.

 

[bryce]

I wonder how the TOS uniforms would look with nipples...???

 

[darkshadow0001]

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.

Which Batmobile is that one from?

I agree with you, I don't really like "The Tumbler" myself, it isn't really a batmobile.

 

[Maurice]

I also don't think it's fair to compare the 1966 Batmobile to the Tumbler. The 1966 car was made in like 10 days, and basically slightly modified an existing concept car. The movie Batmobiles were all designed from the ground-up to be what they are on screen.

And, Therin is right, as with most movie props, there's no one Batmobile from any of the movies. There are usually several, some designed as "hero" vehicles with lots of detail, and others mere shells designed for specific kinds of shots.

 

[trevanian]

What about when the Yoda puppet was redesigned from Episode V to Episode I? Was that a good thing?

Well, the answer to that is self-contained in what Yoda looks like in Eps 2 and 3.

Meaning what, it is good strategy to take super work done in the 80s and use similar techniques to do a crap job in 99 so as to make the CG version you do in the next century look good by comparison?

 

[aloha62]

I hope the enterprise gets redesigned quite a lot, lets be honest here the design has aged very very badly, the original has aged as well as a a knackered oldsmobile and looks far too 60's not to mention fragile.

It wasn't a attractive ship to begin with with it looking very awkward, hell there were early publicity shots shown upside down as people thought the ship looked daft the other way up.

The BoP is a much better design which has stood up very well, the old enterprise looks like it would crack aprt at its spindly anorexic seams if it ever tried anything stressing like moving.