I've seen movies that had better stories and characters than the blockbusters bomb simply because they didn't have the visual scope to compete. There is nothing that can be put into a commercial theatrical movie story that can't be done just as well on television now - what makes a skiffy movie competitive in the current market is mainly visual - delivering things that you can't see on television, because they're still beyond budget practicality for that medium.
Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?
- Thread starter TK421
- Start date
Demanding of what?
They don't know what the future is like, and most aspects of the tech should be kept vague.
Are you arguing that because people saw it 45 years ago that it won't work today? Or are you saying that people who would go see a space movie today are really looking for something more like a video game?
I ask the question earlier... you could answer it now... what is wrong with the curves drawn by Jefferies?
As for what people are willing to watch... 99% of movies don't work from that formula. Are you saying that Pearl Harbor would have been a better movie with nuclear carriers and stealth fighters? Where is all the shiny stuff in the Harry Potter movies? Why didn't they set Sherlock Holmes in a contemporary environment?
These are multi-million dollar movies... and they work.
I've never argued that the original sets (as built for the series) should be used... but there is nothing wrong with the original designs. And a multi-million dollar budget could do those designs the justice they deserve.
And no, I didn't find Wrath of Khan that compelling a story. To date, no Star Trek film has had a truly compelling story. A compelling Trek story, should be compelling even if it wasn't a Trek story. If the story can't stand on it's own without Trek attached, it isn't truly compelling.
But yeah, I think it would have done just as well had the original set designs been rebuilt using the technologies of the 1980s. I'm not suggesting keeping the limitations of the 1960's (or a television show)... I'm suggesting using the designer's vision of the future with what we have available today. That might not work for some "purists", but there is nothing that would hurt it with an audience.
There is nothing wrong with the cross sectional curve shown in that Jefferies drawing... there is nothing that dates or compromises it. And it is functional. Should it be implemented the exact same way today as they did in 1966... of course not. Fan films do because they are catering to the fans... but then again, most fan films are as limited budget wise as TOS originally was.
So, I'll ask again... looking at the Jefferies drawing (and nothing else from TOS, just the drawing by itself), what is wrong with it that audiences wouldn't accept today?
Of something that doesn't look like it was made on a shoestring for a TV budget. Something that looks substantial, and that isn't going to fall over if you lean on it. Really, if you can't get that then there's no pint even debating this.
Which is also completely irrelevant. There isn't a right or wrong 'vision' of the future, but that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Hardly. I'm saying those sets will not work today because they do not and will not look in any way convincing compared to contemporary designs. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just that they will not sell.
Nothing. I never said there was anything *wrong* with it. Nobody did.
Which again is completely beside the point. Those are period pieces, of course they should use authentic designs. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Star Trek is not a period piece. It's a work of fiction that needs to look good enough that its intended audience will suspend belief. Expecting anyone other than dedicated fans to take the original sets seriously is just blinkered.
And on that we disagree. Those sets, updated, *might* look good for a TV series, but not for a major motion picture.
Whether you found TWOK compelling or not isn't the point. It's purely an example.
Which is really no different from what anyone else has been saying. So why are we arguing about it?
Most fanfilms are vastly more budget-limited than the original series. And again, I never said there as anything wrong with Jefferies' work, please stop implying otherwise.
I'd argue we got just that anyway with the Kelvin bridge.
Please don't presume to know my thought processes.
Given the smoothness of the surface, its polish, and the look of the reflections, the helm and navigation console, for example, looks like wood painted black to me. Unpainted molded colored plastic is often not as smooth and hardly reflects at all. Unpainted metal surfaces might be that smooth, but they produce sharper reflections. Sure, I don't know what it is made of based on appearances alone, but there are plenty of things in my everyday experience that this does look exactly like, and those things are all wood painted black.
And before you say, but it could be painted plastic or painted metal, I have to ask why would it be painted at all? Paint will chip, and a starship should not allow even the possibility of chipped paint on the surface of its consoles. If color is a feature then it should be the alloy or plastic itself that has the color, and that's my expectation.
And anyway, I wouldn't expect console surfaces to be pure metal. I imagine plastic would make a better insulator. Goodness knows how often the crew gets shocked. All this means that the consoles appear too smooth in the TOS sets.
There are many other examples worth discussing, but not in what feels like a highly adversarial climate. So, I'm going to follow Intrepid's lead and agree to disagree. I've spent enough time on this issue for now.
It's not even a matter of "thought processes." It looks like wood...because it looks like wood. More precisely, examined in HD most of the TOS sets either have visible wood grain or are finished in the kind of matte interior wall paints that are hard to mistake for anything else and which betray all kinds of imperfections and seams in the material surface.
I'm guessing that some people don't see this because they choose not to, just as they choose to imagine some possible "control interface" logic to backlit plastic cubes placed in arcs and crosses that are duplicated from "station" to "station" and set to set.
The essential design and visual appeal of Jefferies' bridge has in fact continued to be the template for every "Starfleet bridge" up to and including the bridge of the JJPrise, and that's what reveals the guy's design genius - his reported complaint that, for example, the control center of the Enterprise D was a conversion of his military operations center into a hotel lounge really missed the point. We've still got the big window/TV up front, the navigator and weapons guy in front of where the captain sits in the middle of the circle, an elevator or two or three and all the other stations arranged in arcs of however many degrees around them, all in contrasting colors and all installed on several levels to make things interesting for the camera - and that's always the same.
I'm guessing that some people don't see this because they choose not to, just as they choose to imagine some possible "control interface" logic to backlit plastic cubes placed in arcs and crosses that are duplicated from "station" to "station" and set to set.
The essential design and visual appeal of Jefferies' bridge has in fact continued to be the template for every "Starfleet bridge" up to and including the bridge of the JJPrise, and that's what reveals the guy's design genius - his reported complaint that, for example, the control center of the Enterprise D was a conversion of his military operations center into a hotel lounge really missed the point. We've still got the big window/TV up front, the navigator and weapons guy in front of where the captain sits in the middle of the circle, an elevator or two or three and all the other stations arranged in arcs of however many degrees around them, all in contrasting colors and all installed on several levels to make things interesting for the camera - and that's always the same.
And just who in the frakking hell is arguing for that!?!
Okay I'll admit that's belabouring the point, but the simple fact is, a faithful recreation of the original sets simply will not cut it for a multi-million dollar movie.
You answered this later in your own post... you are arguing points I am not, so you are essentially debating yourself. I know it would be easier if I argued things the way you want me too, but that is a discussion for someone else willing to debate those points... which isn't me.
There is a problem... I asked about design. And you go on to say...
"Nothing. I never said there was anything *wrong* with it. Nobody did."
But you in fact just did.Did you mean contemporary construction techniques?
If there is nothing wrong with the design, then it should work. If there is something wrong with the design, point it out.
Simple.
Star Trek is fictional, it can be it's own period piece if it wants to be.
Better production values, better effects, better set construction... but there was nothing wrong with the essence of the original.
Why?
You should be able to point to design elements and say this wouldn't work.
First, you are trying hard to read me into one side or the other on this. I wasn't picking sides, I was asking a question...
What is wrong with the original designs?
There is no implication... you are saying it.
If you want to stop saying it, I'll stop replying to it.
I couldn't see the Kelvin bridge through the lens flares, so I couldn't tell one way or the other.
__________________________________
I was asking... you could haven given an answer that would help, but you had said
"I just don't know how to reply to this."
And that didn't give me much to work with.But this does...
Wow... you can see too smooth on screen and call that wood? I have plastic items around me that reflect as much... are they wood (in your experience)?
Well, the consoles in The Cage were intended to look like metal, but were painted black later to make them feel like acrylic surfaces.
It hasn't been my experience to associate metal, plastic or acrylic with wood... but to each their own.
I was just curious how the designs made things wood. I know the construction was of mainly wood, but I was asking about the designs. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot... but I was also trying not to be left with having to presume to know your thought processes.
Of course a real adversarial climate would include pejoratives like calling people hard core fans... fortunately we haven't had to worry about such things in this thread.
__________________________________
I haven't read every post, but maybe you could point out an example of someone choosing not to see those aspects.
Obviously there must be someone who did that or you wouldn't have brought it up... right?
I'm sorry, but how is calling someone a hard core fan a pejorative? I happen to *be* a hard core fan, so maybe I just don't see where the insult lies. Regardless, my apologies if you read some sort of insult into that, it was certainly not my intention.
Somewhere along the line I've clearly picked you up wrong. I was under the impression that you were arguing for recreations of the original 60s sets. If that isn't the case, then I apologise for the misunderstanding (which I suspect can be traced back to my use of *designs* when I should have said *sets*). To that end, I concede your point; I don't disagree that an updating of those designs could work, but they would have to be far more elaborate, far more polished and far more 'real' to look at (by modern standards) than the version we got in the 60s.
I will say again, though. Whatever is produced needs to look good enough that its intended audience will suspend belief. Could that be done with the existing designs? Possibly. The layout and shapes are fine (to my eye), but I think you'd need to seriously overhaul the finish, the design of the consoles and control surfaces to come up with something convincing for a modern audience.
I am not saying there is *anything* wrong with Jefferies' designs. Perhaps I was not precise enough in my wording, but all I was saying was that I did not believe they would work *as seen in the original series* for a modern audience of a major motion picture. I am not implying that they are wrong, as much as you keep suggesting otherwise, just that the sets as seen in the original series, are a product of their time, same as the design ethos of the Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.
Perhaps you would kind enough to explain how you would suggest the original *designs* (not the sets) be utilised, and how you would rework them for a modern audience.
Somewhere along the line I've clearly picked you up wrong. I was under the impression that you were arguing for recreations of the original 60s sets. If that isn't the case, then I apologise for the misunderstanding (which I suspect can be traced back to my use of *designs* when I should have said *sets*). To that end, I concede your point; I don't disagree that an updating of those designs could work, but they would have to be far more elaborate, far more polished and far more 'real' to look at (by modern standards) than the version we got in the 60s.
I will say again, though. Whatever is produced needs to look good enough that its intended audience will suspend belief. Could that be done with the existing designs? Possibly. The layout and shapes are fine (to my eye), but I think you'd need to seriously overhaul the finish, the design of the consoles and control surfaces to come up with something convincing for a modern audience.
I am not saying there is *anything* wrong with Jefferies' designs. Perhaps I was not precise enough in my wording, but all I was saying was that I did not believe they would work *as seen in the original series* for a modern audience of a major motion picture. I am not implying that they are wrong, as much as you keep suggesting otherwise, just that the sets as seen in the original series, are a product of their time, same as the design ethos of the Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.
Perhaps you would kind enough to explain how you would suggest the original *designs* (not the sets) be utilised, and how you would rework them for a modern audience.
Last edited:
More detail, modern materials, the sort of thing where if they reduced the resolution, it would look at home alongside the TOS sets.
So Maurice, how's that edit coming along? 
Being kind goes both ways... I'm always will to share ideas and have an honest discussion with those willing to do the same.
Last edited:
It's oh-so-freaking ironic.
Well, we wouldn't want you fumbling around trying (unsuccessfully) to push buttons.
Hmm, I must have missed that. Nice, but it still doesn't look like a modern, $150 million movie set to me. And I doubt it would to anyone other than a hard core fan (and no, that's still not a pejorative in case you're wondering).
So in fact, despite your comment to the contrary, you do essentially want the exact same sets. Ah, you had me for a minute. So much for 'arguing with myself'.
What looked futuristic to most people 40 odd years ago, is simply not the same today. To expect a modern audience to accept it as such is unreasonable.
Your mileage, clearly, may vary.
Last edited:
Actually I thought I was sharing something put together long before STXI came out with a friend... but if you want to use it in an attempt to score points, then I'll avoid being as candid and sharing with you in the future.
Nope, not trying to score points at all. I think it's a fair observation.
I'll grant you this. I don't think it can be absolutely proven that those sets *couldn't* work, unless someone wanted to put their money where their mouth is. Alas, I don't think you'll find a single studio willing to make that gamble. Yes, that's a shame. As I've said already, *I'd pay to see it*, but I've yet to see anything that convinces me it'd be financially viable.
I'll grant you this. I don't think it can be absolutely proven that those sets *couldn't* work, unless someone wanted to put their money where their mouth is. Alas, I don't think you'll find a single studio willing to make that gamble. Yes, that's a shame. As I've said already, *I'd pay to see it*, but I've yet to see anything that convinces me it'd be financially viable.
You know what...I'm not sure I would at this point. I got eighty hours of it on DVD, not to mention a couple of Mirror Universe episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise.
Oh I'd definitely pay to see it. Heck, I'd pay to see Exeter, or Farragut, or Phase II on a big screen. I never tire of seeing good stories in that setting. But then, I'm a fan. 
Similar threads
