Yet this "mongrel of a hodgepodge" will be the Enterprise a whole generation grows up with. Spin on that, people
Justin Bieber and Twilight. The new generation loooooooves them.
It's official: Thank God for Remastered!
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
Justin Bieber and Twilight. The new generation loooooooves them.
Ah yes, energy fields. Definitely not technical jargon made up after the point to explain away structural weaknesses
To the viewing public, those who don't own the technical manuals and whatnot, those connecting dorsals and nacelle struts look awfully frail.
And what if the special fields should fail, like everything on the ship has a habit of doing in a time of crisis (except the gravity, of course)?
Structural weaknesses in zero-g in a warp bubble? Probably moot. And if shields fail, ya die. Without shields, thicker nacelles aren't stopping a photon torpedo.
CHANGE OF SUBJECT . . .
I have been arguing against absolute/general statements like the new (or old) effects are "better" or "crap."
But that's no fun. So allow me to make one. Then I'll return to my '90s-kind-of-guy civility for the rest of my tenure here.
Here goes. This statement is true. It is not opinion. TOS/TMP Ent looks better than Abrams-Ent. It is better. It is beautiful. It is graceful and not on steroids like everything in the 2000s. It is better.
Absolutely, wholeheartedly agree!
As for the TOS Enterprise. Can anyone name another fictional spacecraft that's so important that it's in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC?
Err... the Jupiter 2??? The Galactica??? The Millennium Falcon???
Nope. Enterprise only.
"It"? Bub, they are two different designs, and the original is the best IMO. The refit is great, but it misses some vital stuff, and likewise, the Abramsprise.
Why change greatness at all? And if you feel the need to, then it's all good. Just go with the flow.
Back to the original point: I was just watching some old George Melies (Google him) short subjects and I was struck by how much better those in-camera and spliced film effects could have been re-done with CGI technology circa 2007. Color, too.
Seriously, that is some phony looking shit.
Seriously, that is some phony looking shit.
Yes TOS phasers vaporize most materials...Ah yes, energy fields. Definitely not technical jargon made up after the point to explain away structural weaknesses
To the viewing public, those who don't own the technical manuals and whatnot, those connecting dorsals and nacelle struts look awfully frail.
And what if the special fields should fail, like everything on the ship has a habit of doing in a time of crisis (except the gravity, of course)?
Structural weaknesses in zero-g in a warp bubble? Probably moot. And if shields fail, ya die. Without shields, thicker nacelles aren't stopping a photon torpedo.
LOL. Of course the real question is, if you are doing CG, why doesn't it look like this?Back to the original point: I was just watching some old George Melies (Google him) short subjects and I was struck by how much better those in-camera and spliced film effects could have been re-done with CGI technology circa 2007. Color, too.
Seriously, that is some phony looking shit.
This.
(And yes boys and girls, that is not a model)
That doesn't look like a model to me. It's obviously cgi.Yes TOS phasers vaporize most materials...Ah yes, energy fields. Definitely not technical jargon made up after the point to explain away structural weaknesses
To the viewing public, those who don't own the technical manuals and whatnot, those connecting dorsals and nacelle struts look awfully frail.
And what if the special fields should fail, like everything on the ship has a habit of doing in a time of crisis (except the gravity, of course)?
Structural weaknesses in zero-g in a warp bubble? Probably moot. And if shields fail, ya die. Without shields, thicker nacelles aren't stopping a photon torpedo.
LOL. Of course the real question is, if you are doing CG, why doesn't it look like this?Back to the original point: I was just watching some old George Melies (Google him) short subjects and I was struck by how much better those in-camera and spliced film effects could have been re-done with CGI technology circa 2007. Color, too.
Seriously, that is some phony looking shit.
This.
(And yes boys and girls, that is not a model)
It would have been better had they done it the DS9 way: shoot the damn model.
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations064.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations122.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations127.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations404.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations403.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations565.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations064.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations122.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations127.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations404.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations403.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations565.jpg
In my eyes, it's a whisper.
It was a nice model, to be sure, but like all modern Trek, they filmed it wrong. They filmed it as being right on top of Deep Space K-7. The original showed nice distance between them. The scenes inside the space station, from which you could barely make out the Enterprise through the window, were brilliant.
Yeah.
Hey Beakman, can you change your avatar? It's just TOO gorram distracting...
Wait-
don't.
Oooo, we're busted!
Not my fault, I was... distracted.
Oooo, we're busted!
Just checked it out on youtube -- the problem wasn't the relative size in the respective shots, but the movement. Since we don't know the relative size of the ship and the station, they could be a mile apart or a foot apart. The DS-9 version has the ship moving way too quickly for it to be anything but a few feet from the station.
Hey Beakman, can you change your avatar? It's just TOO gorram distracting...
Wait-
don't.
I guess I could put up a capture of the next shot...
oh, wait, right, family site. Sorry.
Oooo, we're busted!
Just checked it out on youtube -- the problem wasn't the relative size in the respective shots, but the movement. Since we don't know the relative size of the ship and the station, they could be a mile apart or a foot apart. The DS-9 version has the ship moving way too quickly for it to be anything but a few feet from the station.
Now you're definately just reaching.
Similar threads
