How would you have done the new movie?

[SMC]

People can keep saying this... but I don't believe it for a minute. Too many talented people here (Dennis, Vektor, Deg3g) have created quality, highly detailed versions of the original that would've looked damn spectacular on the big screen.

With all respect to the artists you mentioned, all they did was take the original design and added a few tiny extra things - it was still the same old boring shape - a dinner plate and some sticks. Seriously, the original Enterprise is one of the more ridiculous sci fi ships around (very much along the same lines as the Jupiter II from Lost in Space - can you see that being taken seriously in a film?) The engineering problems with the design alone are staggering (the center of gravity is actually *outside* the ship) the ST:TMP design for the Enterprise however was magnificent and one could entirely forgive the engineering problems because they turned the frankly ugly TOS ship into something exceptionally elegant and beautiful, not to mention, believable in scale and detailing. The TMP ship (or the Abrams ship) is definitely what Jeffries would have designed if he'd had a budget.

They simply could not EVER have put the original ship on the screen in 1979 or 2009 (even with extra detail) and expected not to be laughed at by everyone except a few Trek fans with their rose tinted glasses on. Specially not 2 years after the release of Star Wars in the case of ST:TMP. And we've had 35 years of further advancement of effects and design on top of that. You people just don't take context into consideration!

 

[Anticitizen]

Those of you who think the TOS Enterprise wouldn't hold up on today's screen... have you seen Vektor's redesign?

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=58313

Check out the above thread for large, high quality 1701 porn. It looks fantastic. There's nothing inherently old-fashioned about the TOS Enterprise aside from a lack of detail, which Vektor's (and others') modernizations address.

As to the comments about the tricorders/phasers/interior designs - of course they'd be updated in the same fashion. But this could be done without reinventing them from scratch. I think the TOS bridge would look fine with the same basic design, and updated materials/screens/buttons, etc. Phasers and communicators could stay more or less the same with fancier LCD-like display windows and blinkenlights. I don't think there's anything inherently old-fashioned about the TOS props except for the simplistic screens/lights/and buttons which are easy to update.

 

[SMC]

Its a beautiful model beautifully rendered - but the design still sucks. Sorry to break this to you. The beautiful execution of the renders just shows up the deficiencies of the original ship that much more starkly.

 

[JarodRussell]

People can keep saying this... but I don't believe it for a minute. Too many talented people here (Dennis, Vektor, Deg3g) have created quality, highly detailed versions of the original that would've looked damn spectacular on the big screen.

With all respect to the artists you mentioned, all they did was take the original design and added a few tiny extra things - it was still the same old boring shape - a dinner plate and some sticks. Seriously, the original Enterprise is one of the more ridiculous sci fi ships around (very much along the same lines as the Jupiter II from Lost in Space - can you see that being taken seriously in a film?) The engineering problems with the design alone are staggering (the center of gravity is actually *outside* the ship) the ST:TMP design for the Enterprise however was magnificent and one could entirely forgive the engineering problems because they turned the frankly ugly TOS ship into something exceptionally elegant and beautiful, not to mention, believable in scale and detailing. The TMP ship (or the Abrams ship) is definitely what Jeffries would have designed if he'd had a budget.

They simply could not EVER have put the original ship on the screen in 1979 or 2009 (even with extra detail) and expected not to be laughed at by everyone except a few Trek fans with their rose tinted glasses on. Specially not 2 years after the release of Star Wars in the case of ST:TMP. And we've had 35 years of further advancement of effects and design on top of that. You people just don't take context into consideration!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/doubleofive/TMP/TOS5-TMPDE-front.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/doubleofive/TMP/TOS5-TMPDE.jpg

Comparing this to the Jupiter II is... yeah well...

The TMP Enterprise is also still just a dinner plate with sticks. And detail. The Abramsprise is also just a dinner plate with sticks. And detail.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Its a beautiful model beautifully rendered - but the design still sucks.

The basic design doesn't suck one bit, but it does have real limits and it's very dated. They started correcting some of the basic issues - the balance and relationships of the parts - in the first Trek movie in 1979.

Church's version looks great. I'd have wanted something closer to the original, but I don't believe the terms of the OP's question include "make sure that your choices maximize the studio's chances of getting their money back."

 

[Anticitizen]

Well, I'm afraid you've lost me. Other than your statement about the center of gravity being outside the ship - which wouldn't matter in a world populated with grav generators, inertial dampners, warp fields and the like - I don't know what you're getting at when you say the design 'sucks'.

Besides, a 100% 'realistic' ship would be ugly as sin, closer to the Nostromo from 'Alien' than the elegant swept curves of our favorite Starfleet ships.

 

[JarodRussell]

Its a beautiful model beautifully rendered - but the design still sucks.

The basic design doesn't suck one bit, but it does have real limits and it's very dated. They started correcting some of the basic issues - the balance and relationships of the parts - in the first Trek movie in 1979.

Church's version looks great. I'd have wanted something closer to the original, but I don't believe the terms of the OP's question include "make sure that your choices maximize the studio's chances of getting their money back."

Do you really think the balance and relationship of the parts is better on the Abramsprise?

And I keep wondering if there some sort of formula that connects the shape and detail of the Enterprise model to the box office results.

 

[SMC]

Do you really think the balance and relationship of the parts is better on the Abramsprise?

Substantially

 

[BillJ]

With all respect to the artists you mentioned, all they did was take the original design and added a few tiny extra things - it was still the same old boring shape - a dinner plate and some sticks. Seriously, the original Enterprise is one of the more ridiculous sci fi ships around (very much along the same lines as the Jupiter II from Lost in Space - can you see that being taken seriously in a film?)

The basic shape was sooo terrible that they continued to use it for forty plus years after it debuted. I do thank you though... your post was damn funny, if uninformed.

 

[JarodRussell]

Do you really think the balance and relationship of the parts is better on the Abramsprise?

Substantially

To each his own I guess. The TMP refit beats this thing by a mile. Just look at those warp nacelles and the pylons. Balanced on both TOS and TMP (even better there), totally unbalanced on Abramsprise. Weren't you the one arguing engineering problems and center of gravity?

 

[BillJ]

Do you really think the balance and relationship of the parts is better on the Abramsprise?

Substantially

To each his own I guess. The TMP refit beats this thing by a mile. Just look at those warp nacelles and the pylons. Balanced on both TOS and TMP (even better there), totally unbalanced on Abramsprise.

The shape of all three seem pretty similar... but what do I know?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Church's version is as attractive as most Trek ships and considerably more so than many of them. If there's anything I don't like about it, it's the proportionately smaller engineering hull and that's really a cue that they seem to have taken from the original Jefferies design. One of the interesting aspects of the JJPrise, in fact, is the number of areas in which Church chose elements from the TOS ship over those versions that have appeared since.

 

[JarodRussell]

We'd need one of those 3D guys do the TOS Enterprise with TMP detail. I don't think anyone has ever done that before.


Here's a nice one of the TOS Enterprise in a nuTrek scene:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/ent_reveal_2.jpg

ILM could have done that pic a lot better, I guess, with the details on that model like on the Abramsprise.

 

[SMC]

Balanced on both TOS and TMP (even better there), totally unbalanced on Abramsprise. Weren't you the one arguing engineering problems and center of gravity

Balanced is Boring - I apply this thinking to everything I design. You've got to have some unbalance here and there in a design - it creates tension and interest.

Anyway, because something is visually balanced doesn't mean its center of gravity is optimally placed.

 

[BillJ]

We'd need one of those 3D guys do the TOS Enterprise with TMP detail. I don't think anyone has ever done that before.


Here's a nice one of the TOS Enterprise in a nuTrek scene:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/ent_reveal_2.jpg

ILM could have done that pic a lot better, I guess, with the details on that model like on the Abramsprise.

That just looks right.

 

[SMC]

Church's version is as attractive as most Trek ships and considerably more so than many of them. If there's anything I don't like about it, it's the proportionately smaller engineering hull and that's really a cue that they seem to have taken from the original Jefferies design. One of the interesting aspects of the JJPrise, in fact, is the number of areas in which Church chose elements from the TOS ship over those versions that have appeared since.

Just about the only area of Church's design I don't agree with is the neck - not the overall shape, but the mouldings along the sides with their odd looking contours strike me as elements with no plausible structural function or visual appeal. My favorite aspect is the forward projecting deflector housing (something Andy Probert played with in some of his Enterprise D concept sketches)

 

[Vincent Law]

Church's version looks great. I'd have wanted something closer to the original, but I don't believe the terms of the OP's question include "make sure that your choices maximize the studio's chances of getting their money back."

That is indeed the case. I am not interested in arguments as to why some of you feel the movie that was made is the only way it could have been made; I am interested in how some of you may have done it differently. If you have something in mind you feel would simply be indulging yourself, and not pragmatically playing toward making the studio as much money as possible, I am still very much interested in that. That is why the only rule I imposed on the topic was not to simply say, "I would have done it the same way JJ Abrams did it."

Much like the thread I started in the Sci-Fi forum, I am interested in what others would want to see if they were given a choice. If it would help, pretend that the movie that was made, wasn't made. The last thing made for the franchise was Star Trek: Enterprise, and the last movie that was Star Trek: Nemesis. Now what?

 

[I Grok Spock]

We'd need one of those 3D guys do the TOS Enterprise with TMP detail. I don't think anyone has ever done that before.


Here's a nice one of the TOS Enterprise in a nuTrek scene:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/ent_reveal_2.jpg

ILM could have done that pic a lot better, I guess, with the details on that model like on the Abramsprise.

Nicely executed, but I can see why they upsized the ship. The original model in "real life" scale doesn't quite have the wow factor the scene required.

 

[Anticitizen]

Man, I beg to differ.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Man, I beg to differ.

Notice the amount of changes made to her for her to work on the big screen?

FYI, this is my favorite incarnation of the ship, followed by the TOS version.