For those of us who don't hate the Nu Enterprise but don't love it
- Thread starter sunburn800
- Start date
- Status
Ah, the Roddenberry approach then.
Don't be so mean and give the Great Bird of the Galaxy a little bit credit (even if he had an ego almost half as big as the Shat's and the right kind of wife to back it up)...
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Most of the things from the 60s looks silly by today's standards. Especially how the 60s envisioned the future.
So, basically, everything that doesn't look like it's directly lifted from TOS...
Yeah, that was the idea. Just as one can't draw the (obviously false) conclusion that Chekov has no lines in the film from the fact that he has no lines in the trailer, one can hardly conclude that there will be no "clear" shots of the Enterprise in the film simply because we don't see her glide majestically past in the trailer. That's just how trailers are cut these days, at least for flicks like this one. That said, I doubt we'll be "treated" to a half-hour flyby of the ship as in TMP.
I made no "conclusion", but only offered a hypothetical. And with this design, I certainly hope there won't be a detailed flyby.
How so?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Ah, the Roddenberry approach then.
Don't be so mean and give the Great Bird of the Galaxy a little bit credit (even if he had an ego almost half as big as the Shat's and the right kind of wife to back it up)...
Roddenberry created Trek and tried to make money with it. There is nothing wrong with it. It was a cash cow for him and Paramount.
Winky-blinkly lights going on and off in repeating patterns at every manned station look cheesy...
Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...
Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...
Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...
Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...
Colored plastic cubes arranged in criss-cross patterns as "control panels" look cheesy...
Static pictures of planets and galaxies mounted above all the stations look cheesy...
Whirling moire patterns as instrument displays look cheesy...
Fiberglass pedestal dinette chairs as station seating look cheesy...
ST-One
Vice Admiral
By today's standards.
I guess you didn't think they were cheesy when you saw TOS for the first time in the 60s?
^^ Nah, I think we all thought they were cheesy then, too 
. I'll agree that the bridge needed an update (not to be turned into the lingerie dept. at Macy's, but at least something resembling plausible technology), and the interiors could stand an update (without being turned into generic fiberglas tubes). TOS's sets and corridors actually made sense - with the level of technology they had, it wasn't necessary to festoon every square inch with greeblies, and the walls, floors and ceilings could be smooth and 'homey.' But, yeah, the giant jeweled buttons and the dinette chairs were a bit much - or rather, not nearly enough. It's just too bad that the new sets are a combination of a brewery and all the "plexiglas with printed 'circuitry' on it" that was already cheesy when it was used in Stargate SG-1.
. I'll agree that the bridge needed an update (not to be turned into the lingerie dept. at Macy's, but at least something resembling plausible technology), and the interiors could stand an update (without being turned into generic fiberglas tubes). TOS's sets and corridors actually made sense - with the level of technology they had, it wasn't necessary to festoon every square inch with greeblies, and the walls, floors and ceilings could be smooth and 'homey.' But, yeah, the giant jeweled buttons and the dinette chairs were a bit much - or rather, not nearly enough. It's just too bad that the new sets are a combination of a brewery and all the "plexiglas with printed 'circuitry' on it" that was already cheesy when it was used in Stargate SG-1.
Adding robot puke to the outer hull does not an advanced ship make. The TOS ship looks clean, smooth, and functional. By your rationale, an F-22 Raptor looks dated and cheap because of its smooth hull and "simplistic" design.
Perhaps you can demonstrate how the Constitution class looks simplistic using examples.
I agree with you Juan, but the F-22 has panels and rivets. Not completely smooth. So adding an aztec-like pattern to the TOS Enterprise would help I think.
Last edited:
I'm sure the TOS ship has panels and the 23rd century equivalent to rivets at well, but the ship is so huge you're not going to see them from any significant distance. And I never much liked the aztec paneling. Hull sections aren't built and assembled like that. Something a bit more subtle, like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/JuanBolio/inamirrordarkly2_868.jpg
...might be better.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/JuanBolio/inamirrordarkly2_868.jpg
...might be better.
Even that looks too 'liquid' for me, but maybe it's just the quality of the CGI, or that particular image. The Defiant did look good in 'IaMD,' moreso when in motion.
I think they were hell-bent on redesigning it to establish this as something different. It's their prerogative, and I don't mind that. It's a reboot. I just wish it had slightly different results, at least in proportions. I still think there are going to be plot explanations for why it seems to have a TOS/TMP hybrid styling.
In a perfect world, I'd have liked the TOS ship to appeared in a more detailed form, but that just wasn't the case. Even a compromise of some kind would have been nice. As much as I have pained over the design of the NX-01, I honestly would not have minded them taking the NX style and the 1701 style and finding a 'middle ground' to base the design from. Or even the Kelvin styling, which seems to fit that bill a bit.
The outside still doesn't bother me as much as the inside.
I'm going to go dig myself a trench and take cover now. Carry on.
I think they were hell-bent on redesigning it to establish this as something different. It's their prerogative, and I don't mind that. It's a reboot. I just wish it had slightly different results, at least in proportions. I still think there are going to be plot explanations for why it seems to have a TOS/TMP hybrid styling.
In a perfect world, I'd have liked the TOS ship to appeared in a more detailed form, but that just wasn't the case. Even a compromise of some kind would have been nice. As much as I have pained over the design of the NX-01, I honestly would not have minded them taking the NX style and the 1701 style and finding a 'middle ground' to base the design from. Or even the Kelvin styling, which seems to fit that bill a bit.
The outside still doesn't bother me as much as the inside.
I'm going to go dig myself a trench and take cover now. Carry on.
Suppose ... I'm speaking hypothetically, here, so bear with me... but suppose that someone were to use the term "kewl" and nobody noticed or bothered to respond? Or, even better, suppose... speaking again hypothetically... that no one were to use the term "kewl" at all, and were particularly not using the term "kewl" (set off by quotation marks, no less) in such a way as to give the appearance that it might be being used with the intent of goading others into responding to it, whether in hissy fits or otherwise?
Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
That'd be so "kewl".Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
Awesome plane for it's time the 262.
Oh, absolutely... and I can't recall anyone ever saying that those elements needed to be kept. In fact, the first two items in your list, here, were ones I mentioned already as being undeniably cheesy. (Winkie-blinkies and cast-resin gumdrops)
The ideal would have been to redo the details... like the things that you and I have both mentioned... without redoing the overall design (shape, size and arrangement, general color scheme - less the colored-gel lighting of course... etc, etc).
It looks to me as if they more or less left the general shape, size and arrangement intact, don't you think? For me, maybe the most important thing about the original bridge – and the very reason why it works – is the arrangement of Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Sulu & Chekov and their respective stations. And as per Scott Chambliss, the Production Designer, that's what was important to them, too.
And that's the sort of detailing we're all pretty much universally agreed upon.
Albeit, not necessarily an "aztek pattern" (which, recall, is a term coined to represent the "aztek-style hieroglyphics" appearance of the repeating patter in the paneling on the TMP ship... not a real "technical" term). Rather... clear (if subtle) paneling... what we sometimes call "aztek"... is one such tool.
The TOS-R version (primarily the second one) is great. Darren Docherman's version is great. Prof. M's ship is great. Vektor's "modified" version is great, as is the TOS.5 version (both of which can be seen in the art forum here). Dennis's various takes on it were pretty good (albeit typically deviating further from the mark than I'd have preferred. Hell, even Gabe's pretty dramatic take on it kept the basic proportions and appearances.
These show a sort of sliding scale... from those which were intended to completely replicate the TOS ship (but with a greater level of resolution) to those which were intended to be dramatically different in the details but still look like the original.
They all kept the basic configuration, and the basic details. And all of them, without exception, would have been better choices than what we're seeing in the "alt-universe" we've seen in this film so far.
Of course... it IS an "alt-universe." So there's still no reason to conclude (other than by listening to people on this BBS who know nothing more than any of the rest of us do) that the movie won't give us a much more "TOS-ish" ship for the final sequences (post-reset-button).
No, I don't. The ship isn't the same shape or arrangement, except insofar as it has two nacelles over a secondary hull which is itself under a primary hull.
The TMP 1701 was much closer in size and shape to the original E than the "2009" E is.
And the interior sets are much different as well. The bridge isn't circular, just for one example. The new bridge has more in common with the Voyager bridge than with the TOS 1701 bridge.
Well, Scott Chambliss has said a few other things that give a lot of us pause over why he did what he did, so I'm not sure quoting the guy whose work is being criticized is the best way to defend his own work. Of COURSE he, personally, thinks he got it right.
As for the general arrangement... Uhura is much further away from Kirk, and there's no railing in between (for McCoy to lean on as he so often did in TOS). The distance between Kirk and either Sulu or Chekov is much further (and it's not like the space is being well-used... the advantage of a large console is limited to "how far your arms can reach" after all). How many times did Kirk leap forward to the helm console in TOS? In the new bridge, he'll have to take a short jog to get there, won't he?
Nitpicking? Not so much... because the point was "keeping the same general size, shape and arrangement. And it's not "the same" at all.
Better? Worse? We can dispute that all day long. But "the same?" Not remotely.
A rounded room with a big viewer, a single chair for the captain at the center, Sulu and Chekov sitting in front of it, Uhura sitting behind and Spock to its side.
Sounds and looks like "the same general size, shape and arrangement" to me. But our mileage seems to vary.
Sounds and looks like "the same general size, shape and arrangement" to me. But our mileage seems to vary.
- Status
