The ship is from the movie Virtuality it says so right in the text of the article.
It is an interesting article by the way.
???
Exactly, where did you read otherwise??? He was a science advisor on the project!
RAMA
TOS-R question...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
???
Exactly, where did you read otherwise??? He was a science advisor on the project!
RAMA
No where here did you credit the design to a TV movie. You simply passed it off as a conjectural design for a future spacecraft.
As Star trek proves, you don't need to have seen alien technology to conceptualize it.
Speculated, yes, based on current human progress. How easy it is to accurately predict what future technologies will be and what they will look like
This all comes down to aesthetics and entertainment, and for my money the TOS-R Tholian ships look like crap. Not even super-advanced, technologically feasible, crystal-creature designed crap, but cgi crap trying to look kewl. My only evidence is what my brain makes of the images I posted above.
There are ways of detaching yourself from current human progress and speculate on something alien that has no bearing on current or near-future design..something that is conceptually unlikely or impossible by human standards. Yes, when translated to entertainment it has to look good, but that doesn't alter my points at all.
I still think the original is a nice shape but looks like crap as a potential alien spaceship, further it is poorly shot and lit in some scenes. It looks more fitting for a trinket rather than a TV show. The new one looks "real". That's my final say on that particular subject.
RAMA
Wow you're thick...I said "conceptual". The design for the show is based on a science advisor's concept, a concept which he expounds upon on in the article.
It is only one design that looked similar to most of those I've seen that are potential designs for the next 100 yrs or so. These tend to follow a certain pattern: detailed, modular ships with large areas for fuel and far smaller areas for storage and crew space. Often long, segemented and very detailed with compartments and the like.
Edit: Btw I expected you to actually read it. Why wouldn't you have realized it was a conceptual design for a tv show??
RAMA
Last edited:
Which seems to be all that your actually interested in.
It's funny you're always the first one to start throwing insults when someone doesn't agree with you.
It's incredible I haven't been hit by a bus, since I lack common sense and am thick.
Um right...Which is why I spent post after post here explaining science, morality, history, tech to you over the last few weeks!
However, I do have an artist's background so yes, design aesthetics are important to me, as well as technology and believability. So what? It's still like talking to a wall on this forum when everyone bases their decisions on nostalgia and familiarity rather than sense.
RAMA
It's funny you're always the first one to start throwing insults when someone doesn't agree with you.
It's incredible I haven't been hit by a bus, since I lack common sense and am thick.
This is one particular question that wasn't about opinions, it was about fact...it took 4 posts for you to get it.
RAMA
This is where you seem to be lost. It's not about 'nostalgia' and 'familiarity' as you seem desperate to prove. It's about what fires the imagination. You paint every window, every thruster and every phaser port on a given design... a person will look at it once and move on. You give them a general idea and a person's imagination will go to work filling in those details. How can something be that minimalistic and yet still function? It speaks to a race being highly advanced.
That is why the original Tholian ship works.
Last edited:
Um right...Which is why I spent post after post here explaining science, morality, history, tech to you over the last few weeks!
I'll let this one go. Because I doubt you could convince a five-year old that the sky is blue.
Yes, it proves you aren't the only one here who is oblivious. Trying to discuss any changes to TOS at all is like trying to convince an Islamist there is no God. Explaining doesn't mean convincing, and I never have any intention of it.
This is proven every single day on here. It was proven by your anecdotes about TOS-R, proven by others who couched their comments in dogmatic arguments along the "purist" line...which to me is the least interesting and valid sort of reasoning.
RAMA
Um right...Which is why I spent post after post here explaining science, morality, history, tech to you over the last few weeks!
I'll let this one go. Because I doubt you could convince a five-year old that the sky is blue.
Yes, it proves you aren't the only one here who is oblivious. Trying to discuss any changes to TOS at all is like trying to convince an Islamist there is no God. Explaining doesn't mean convincing, and I never have any intention of it.
This is proven every single day on here. It was proven by your anecdotes about TOS-R, proven by others who couched their comments in dogmatic arguments along the "purist" line...which to me is the least interesting and valid sort of reasoning.
RAMA
I notice you cut out my second comment?
Found a fantastic shot of a conceptually alien spacecraft.
Now one could say that a sphere is the most sensible sort of spaceship in 3d space, even on Earth, but which is the most well executed? The light bulbs on a rubber chew toy ball, or this?
http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/06/first-image-from-corbomite-manuever/
Now one could say that a sphere is the most sensible sort of spaceship in 3d space, even on Earth, but which is the most well executed? The light bulbs on a rubber chew toy ball, or this?
http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/06/first-image-from-corbomite-manuever/
I find this funny. I watched TOS-R, bought TOS-R on Blu-ray and found many of the episodes enjoyable and have went on record saying so. But there were mis-steps and The Tholian Web was one of them.
See you damage your own argument right from the beginning by hurling insults at one of the images. Do you fear that if you simply pose the question of "which one is better?", the results might not be to your liking?
As to the question of which one is subjectively "better"... I'm not sure. I think it depends on what a person is looking for. In the remastered image you posted I always thought the Enterprise looks like a pencil sketch, while stunning, blows the illusion.
Um, that's silly. Just because everyone doesn't wholesale accept work produced 5 years ago to be automatically better than work produced 45 years ago doesn't mean they're unduly biased by "nostalgia and familiarity"
The new Tholian ship, e.g. is "familiar," but cheaply rendered and unnecessarily altered. I know you don't wanna talk about that one anymore.
It's only like talking to a wall because you seem to be unwilling to accept that any opinion other than "TOS-R FX are the only way to view TOS, the old ones are stupid and these are so much better can't you see that?" is somehow wrong. I've said time and again, I feel some shots are improvements, and I feel some shots are replacing one piece of fakery with an inferior piece of fakery, be it because of design, rendering, budget, technique, whatever the reason. But it's not all or nothing.
As a whole, each episode of TOS is a piece of artwork. There were many craftsmen (and women) involved, and there were certainly compromises to time and budget, but the work is there, it is complete, it has endured, and it is why we're all here. To dismiss that legacy to nostalgia is shortsighted.
Can a piece of media be altered over time? Certainly. And we have seen that done here to varying degrees of success. Without comparing style, I find the CGI FX of nuBSG, for example to be more sophisticated and more 'realistic' than the work done for TOS-R. Now it all comes down to artistry, and time and budget once again. Given more time and money could TOS have been done better in 1966? Absolutely. Without question. Could the same be said for the new FX created in 2007? Absolutely. Without question.
We know the Anderson Company was limited in what it was able to accomplish and deliver for TOS's original schedule, we also know that there were things left undone by CBS Digital and that certain episodes (and individual effects) received more time and attention than others. Maybe in 50 years they'll have another go. Best news is, since we have both, we're each able to enjoy what we prefer.
IDIC!
As to the question of which one is subjectively "better"... I'm not sure. I think it depends on what a person is looking for. In the remastered image you posted I always thought the Enterprise looks like a pencil sketch, while stunning, blows the illusion.
Top image looks like a fine conceptual drawing.
Bottom one looks like a mediocre film composite.
Neither one would I call 'realistic' or 'film-like' in the sense of viewing an actual event.
What I remember from the original is the sense of scale and otherworldliness when seen in motion as part of the whole. I'd have to rewatch the episode to really comment on which I presently prefer, but the fact remains that the 'improved' version looks like a detailed painting while the 'original' looks like a photograph meeting a blurry photograph.
Um, that's silly. Just because everyone doesn't wholesale accept work produced 5 years ago to be automatically better than work produced 45 years ago doesn't mean they're unduly biased by "nostalgia and familiarity"
The new Tholian ship, e.g. is "familiar," but cheaply rendered and unnecessarily altered. I know you don't wanna talk about that one anymore.
It's only like talking to a wall because you seem to be unwilling to accept that any opinion other than "TOS-R FX are the only way to view TOS, the old ones are stupid and these are so much better can't you see that?" is somehow wrong. I've said time and again, I feel some shots are improvements, and I feel some shots are replacing one piece of fakery with an inferior piece of fakery, be it because of design, rendering, budget, technique, whatever the reason. But it's not all or nothing.
As a whole, each episode of TOS is a piece of artwork. There were many craftsmen (and women) involved, and there were certainly compromises to time and budget, but the work is there, it is complete, it has endured, and it is why we're all here. To dismiss that legacy to nostalgia is shortsighted.
Can a piece of media be altered over time? Certainly. And we have seen that done here to varying degrees of success. Without comparing style, I find the CGI FX of nuBSG, for example to be more sophisticated and more 'realistic' than the work done for TOS-R. Now it all comes down to artistry, and time and budget once again. Given more time and money could TOS have been done better in 1966? Absolutely. Without question. Could the same be said for the new FX created in 2007? Absolutely. Without question.
We know the Anderson Company was limited in what it was able to accomplish and deliver for TOS's original schedule, we also know that there were things left undone by CBS Digital and that certain episodes (and individual effects) received more time and attention than others. Maybe in 50 years they'll have another go. Best news is, since we have both, we're each able to enjoy what we prefer.
IDIC!
This is exactly how people react though...not "well its better because it looks sharper, has more detail and fits better with the alien's concept, and was lit better"...it's "well the original didn't need changing, it looked just fine, because that's how the designers meant it to look", and "smooth is better" (ignoring 40 years of real space design and advancing production techniques in scifi), "no the traveling mattes were meant to look that way". Because in fact...they can't look better, they never will. It will never look sharper or better lit, or more detailed or anything. It just won't, because of technical advancements that make a very technical area of filming TV better. I also think a melding of design sense...combining 60s sensibilities with modern concepts and 40 years of design improvements make for worthy successors to the originals. This is where the quibbles are worst...but I don't see one case where the new ships don't look better. Even so, the creators (or re-creators) take careful effort in making them appear like they might have come from the 1960s. I give them all credit for NOT making them look like NuBSG.
RAMA
Similar threads
