trevanian
Rear Admiral
Don't credit ILM for Bennett's screwups, that happened before ILM even signed on.
Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise
- Thread starter Lowdarzz
- Start date
- Status
Don't credit ILM for Bennett's screwups, that happened before ILM even signed on.
Don't credit ILM for Bennett's screwups, that happened before ILM even signed on.
Indeed. I still give them shit for taking 2.5 movies before they learned just how to really shoot the Refit-E in a good way.
Further, Roddenberry insisted on other changes besides the separation feature. According to The Art of Star Trek, GR had Probert shorten the nacelles and move the bridge from the center of the ship back to the top where it had been in TOS.
The Star Trek Magazine (not the current one but the one before that) had a two-part article on the development of the TNG bridge. One of the sketches showed the bridge just a little pass the center line of the saucer and atop the stardrive's battle head. Thus the bridge was protected when the saucer was in place, but exposed and remained with the battle section when separated.
Canonistas (thanks, starship polaris) and the like have been decrying the design sensibilities of the new Big "E," and state that Roddenberry understood this and that about "futuristic space" designs. Well, he was still a Hollywood producer/writer and prone to making unsensibile choices in the design of Trek based on his sense of visual appeal. The bridge at the top being one of them.
Well, in one post I admit that i did say I was slightly disappointed, and that really comes from a combination of factors in that single still photo, which I also admit is not a lot to base a final decision on. But they released the picture, so they should expect some reaction.
I don't like the idea of a saucer so very close to the refit design, at least from the edge and below (I have seen some indication that the top surface is quite different). If the film is meant as a parallel history with an overall very different aesthetic, why use something so well known in Trek design? Unless, of course, they pull a time-travel trick as I and others have wondered about, which would make this new ship "valid" as existing before the familiar TOS Ent or the refit, which for all we know won't ever exist. I also can't warm up to the slightly bulbous nature and large size of the nacelles and the odd-looking (to me) plyons. I don't want to leave the impression that I can't stand this version, I just can't say I like it. Plenty of folks don't like my designs, and that's perfectly fine with me. If I could go back and change some proportions or details on some of them, you bet I would, but I have to live with them as they are.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
^^Thanks for explaining, Rick. It's a fair assessment; naturally different designers (and directors) would make different choices. I would've liked something more faithful in its shape, though I don't mind the TMP-ish detailing. Maybe something with the shape of Gabriel Koerner's Enterprise but with the surface textures of this design would've been nice.
I'm not convinced the film is meant to be a parallel reality, but if it were, then maybe the answer to your question is the same as why Smallville adopted the Kryptonian crystal architecture from the Superman movies even though it's in a separate continuity. It's more paying homage than implying a continuity link. If, on the other hand, it's meant to be the same continuity (which is what the producers' past comments have seemed to indicate, though I admit I'm no longer as sure of that), then I assume the intent is "it looked that way all along," as with Roddenberry and Klingon foreheads.
Naturally, Rick, I'm tempted to ask: if you'd had the assignment to upgrade the original E for a modern feature film, what might you have done?
I'm not convinced the film is meant to be a parallel reality, but if it were, then maybe the answer to your question is the same as why Smallville adopted the Kryptonian crystal architecture from the Superman movies even though it's in a separate continuity. It's more paying homage than implying a continuity link. If, on the other hand, it's meant to be the same continuity (which is what the producers' past comments have seemed to indicate, though I admit I'm no longer as sure of that), then I assume the intent is "it looked that way all along," as with Roddenberry and Klingon foreheads.
Naturally, Rick, I'm tempted to ask: if you'd had the assignment to upgrade the original E for a modern feature film, what might you have done?
Seems similar to my take on this production. Variation on a theme is how best I can describe it. It's similar to what Geoff Johns, James Robinson, and Gary Frank are doing on the current batch of Superman comics. They are culling from the history of Superman but not beholden to much to the nitpicky details of it. Therefore, we get the crystal architecture of the FoS while getting a colorful and architecturally varied Kandor. It still fits together. Frank's Clark/Superman looks a bit like Chris Reeve who is still married to Lois who bares a striking resemblance to Margot Kidder. The same with Abrams' Trek-- same theme but different composition.
I will decide to pass judgement on that moniker for a while. Still do not understand that design and why by committee?
How so?
A
Amaris
Guest
Hey Rick,
I don't know if you've seen it yet, but Madman has a nice 3D mesh of the new Enterprise here (page two has the best shots). I was on the fence about the ship until I saw the 3D fleshing out, and if it's anywhere near what Madman's proposing, then I think the ship will look far better than that one photo (at an admittedly bad angle). For me I went from on the fence to loving it.
Also, like Christopher, I'm not ready to believe we're seeing a parallel reality yet, but I do wonder if J.J.'s just playing with our heads (as he is apt to do), and that there's another shoe to drop.
J.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Minor's design was a series of bubbles that heated and popped (which is why the live-action part of the set is a hemisphere.) His sketch for the wider view reflected this, and has been printed in a few STARLOGs and probably elsewhere. It wasn't pretty, but it was consistent, and somewhat alien.
ILM just left this hemisphere out there looking incongruous against their very traditional looking environmental matte painting, including supertacky waterfall. Almost everybody hates those shots, but nobody ever takes the heat for them.
And to be fair, the first shots when we get Kirk's POV, with silhouetted real trees against a sunny bg, are very nice. But the stuff with the hemisphere is just godawful.
Well, that goes a little further in showing possible angles for the basic masses. I still have a problem with the pylons and the nacelles; the shapes still don't feel right to me, maybe because they don't seem to be done in the same style as the saucer or the neck. I have seen something of a top view, which tells that the nacelles are pulled in much closer to the ship CL than those of either the refit or the TOS Ent (so the pylons must be tipped up at a 75 degree angle or so). But if the pylons are connected to the hull so close to the narrow aft end of the ship, now my tech brain starts worrying about what kind of structural strength we're seeing. Sure, it's all bogus and the pylons could be attached to the wide beam of the secondary hull with some amazing heavy-duty gamma welding, but it looks a bit flimsy. And before people jump on me for aiming guns at Ryan Church, I'm just putting out some design thoughts.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, that goes a little further in showing possible angles for the basic masses. I still have a problem with the pylons and the nacelles; the shapes still don't feel right to me, maybe because they don't seem to be done in the same style as the saucer or the neck. I have seen something of a top view, which tells that the nacelles are pulled in much closer to the ship CL than those of either the refit or the TOS Ent (so the pylons must be tipped up at a 75 degree angle or so). But if the pylons are connected to the hull so close to the narrow aft end of the ship, now my tech brain starts worrying about what kind of structural strength we're seeing. Sure, it's all bogus and the pylons could be attached to the wide beam of the secondary hull with some amazing heavy-duty gamma welding, but it looks a bit flimsy. And before people jump on me for aiming guns at Ryan Church, I'm just putting out some design thoughts.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
I don't think anyone would jump on you for simply thinking out loud. I guess you could say the ship fits a bit like a mongrel class. Beautiful angles and curves from several designs put together to make a less than beautiful whole. I can understand that. Really, though, I just can't wait to see her in motion. I think that will give the final say.
J.
I don't think anyone would jump on you for simply thinking out loud. I guess you could say the ship fits a bit like a mongrel class. Beautiful angles and curves from several designs put together to make a less than beautiful whole. I can understand that. Really, though, I just can't wait to see her in motion. I think that will give the final say.
J.
I've seen a lot of those Photoshop "adjustments" to the publicity image, and I've gotta say that I think some of them are spot on in terms of getting the neck closer to the front of the secondary hull, changing the shapes of the pylons, and I believe one of them shrank the nacelles by 25% or so. Feels much better. It's just one of those reptilian brain things, I'm guessing.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't think anyone would jump on you for simply thinking out loud. I guess you could say the ship fits a bit like a mongrel class. Beautiful angles and curves from several designs put together to make a less than beautiful whole. I can understand that. Really, though, I just can't wait to see her in motion. I think that will give the final say.
J.
I've seen a lot of those Photoshop "adjustments" to the publicity image, and I've gotta say that I think some of them are spot on in terms of getting the neck closer to the front of the secondary hull, changing the shapes of the pylons, and I believe one of them shrank the nacelles by 25% or so. Feels much better. It's just one of those reptilian brain things, I'm guessing.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
It must be, because I felt the same way even though I like the new design.
I think that the closer they get it to either the original design or the TMP refit, people start to feel better. It's because those designs just "feel" right. We've seen it dozens of times here on the board where the TMP refit is seen as "perfection". I must admit it's my favorite refit of the original Enterprise.
I think what we're doing is analyzing the ship's practicality, where we ask questions like "Why would they make the design so off balance?", because that's what I feel, even as someone who likes it, is that the ship feels off balance, like it's not in harmony with the laws of physics.
J.
As has been said a couple of times, it's srill too early to give an informed opinion on the overall design and ship proportions untill we see more shots from different angles.
Overall, for me, it looks as if they have taken a very different design approach for the new Enterprise battle section and warp nacelles/pylons and simply 'bolted' on a slightly modified saucer section from TMP.
In the picture below, the overall diameter of the front of the nacelles looks way too large and close together.
But thats just my opinion.
Overall, for me, it looks as if they have taken a very different design approach for the new Enterprise battle section and warp nacelles/pylons and simply 'bolted' on a slightly modified saucer section from TMP.
In the picture below, the overall diameter of the front of the nacelles looks way too large and close together.
But thats just my opinion.
Not quite.
The design he settled on as "this is the one" had the saucer and nacelles in the traditional arrangement, on top, with the secondary hull below. In an attempt to front load the proposal, he did a painting to go along with the standard sketches, and to really sweeten the deal, a quick-and-dirty wood model, with the saucer and lower hull made from balsa, and if he'd had a little more time, the nacelles would've also been turned from balsa, but he figured he'd save time and just use some dowel rods. He then attached a string to the puppy, brought along his best drawings of the design, and went off to meet with Roddenberry and the others.
It was when Jefferies picked up the model by the string that the thing flipped upside down, with the saucer and nacelles below (y'see, the dowel rods were of harder wood than the balsa hull pieces, and thus heavier), so he now had to do a major sales job on Roddenberry to get it switched back.
Which is inaccurate in one detail, visible in the sketches. Gene asked for the bridge on top and the nacelles to be longer. The book gets that latter point wrong.
No, they are the longer version. Probert's original design had no overhang behind the pylons at all.
- Status
