It was only distracting in the sense that it was the climactic shot in the sequence, so that at the moment where you should be going YEAH! some members of the audience are going "Oh, I remember that shot."
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was ILM's decision to scrap the D. But I seem to recall hearing them say that it wasn't an easy model to work with. Of course, they did some of the original model work for "Encounter at Farpoint," but I don't believe they were the ones who built the model and they didn't work on TNG after the pilot.First understand that while it was the producers desire to get rid of the D (as it was specifically designed for the 4:3 frame ratio that isn't going to be the case for films). It wasn't just about the exterior, it was completely and totally evident that the entire of the ship as built couldn't be legitimately used to look could for theatrical use. You see how much they changed the lighting scheme and changed sets to try and make it more suited for the big screen, it was just a huge issue for them and looking into the future (and I say this as someone who really doesn't like the exterior of the E, interior love though).
I hadn't thought about Stellar Cartography in this discussion. That's a good point. It was an impressive set, and certainly different from anything else we'd seen on the Enterprise-D. But was it worth all the money that went into it when it served no purpose other than to add a bit of a "wow" factor to a scene that lasts only a matter of minutes? Since they were destroying the ship at the end of the film, they knew that set would never be used again. So why prioritize that expense and then have to go chopping away at your climactic battle?Of course they could have killed stellar Cartography. Though I loved that scene and the FX for the most part. Certainly a thousand times better then the set used in Lessons. OR changed other aspects of the script to remove other FX elements (like crashing into the planet). But to do what they chose to do, they were going to have to trade off with reused shots, redressed sets, ect.
Agree.Honestly, why the E-D even needed to drop the BoP's shields is a mystery to me.
Agree, the Vorcha would have been a much more believable opponent to a Galaxy class flagship.^^^ Agreed. A Galaxy class arsenal should be able to overwhelm the defenses of an old out-of-service BoP.
I also thought, if they're going to recycle stock footage of a BoP fighting and defeating the Enterprise, why not recycle stock footage of a Vorcha instead? But I guess that had to do with TV versus Cinema technical details.
Because the BoP explosion is what ruined the film... come on the graphic effects are the frosting not the cake.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was ILM's decision to scrap the D. But I seem to recall hearing them say that it wasn't an easy model to work with. Of course, they did some of the original model work for "Encounter at Farpoint," but I don't believe they were the ones who built the model and they didn't work on TNG after the pilot.
I just get the feeling that different effects houses have their own unique ways of making motion control models and that ILM didn't care for the way the A or the D were designed.
Honestly I never got why people obsessed so much over the graphics. Sure they can enhance an episode or film but they're not going to define it. I really didn't care that they recycled the Bird of Prey exploding. How many angles do we have to see it blow up from? I didn't mind the Dominion War recylcled footage, there's a budget and the point it gotten across. Neither took away from the plot, which is what makes an episode or movie good or bad.
Honestly I think if they just flipped it so the BoP was angling the other direction fewer people would have even noticed. Generations was a bad movie. But not because of the explosion. If we went by flashy graphics being the end all, Enterprise would be the best series and Nemesis the best movie.
What makes the BoP explosion stand out is that it explodes in a unique fashion. It's not a model with an explosion graphic slapped over it. The model is blown up in sections, bit by bit. It's actually a pretty slow destruction, made to milk the visceral impact, the immense high in TUC as torpedo after torpedo hammered the damned thing at the end of a one-sided battle. It's extremely distinctive. And when it was first shown in theaters in 1991, the audience cheered. I got a tingle of excitement for years rewatching that. It was perfectly done and intentionally created to have this effect on people.
Then, the next film uses the exact same shot and it stands out (to fans) because of what I described above. It wasn't just another ship being blown up, it was the emotional climax of the previous film. Because of this, what should have been a fist pumping climax in GEN just deflated.
It would be as if a refit Constitution class ship was destroyed in Star Trek 4 and they just reused the Enterprise destruction shot. There would be bitching about that as well, and, IMO, rightly so. Flybys and establishing shots are fine to reuse. Shots that are used to climax a major action sequence really should be new. Even if it doesn't kill the film, it does say "cheap."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.