Animated nuTrek concept art

[Relayer1]

It looks wonderful - if they get the characters right it could be fantastic.

One thing I would be concerned about is animations scope to do things they couldn't in a live action show. As tempting as it is, it could take the show way too far away from what Trek is about - I don't want the cast forever running away from giant monsters and ludicrous aliens, it should be a little more adult (not meaning 'edgy') than that.

As soon as there's a smart kid, cute animal or funny robot, I'm out...

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I hate to be critical, but what we see here is the easy part. The hard part is getting the characters right. And we don't see any of that, here.

Those vague tiny featureless renders of Kirk, Spock, and some red shirt dwarfed by the Big Alien Things don't count.

Furthermore, the unrealistic proportions of the characters that we can discern don't impress me at all; quite the opposite, actually. I can only hope that the character drawings here are thumbnail placeholders in lieu of actual character drawings to be inserted once it's figured out exactly how to draw them (e.g., regard a faceless Spock).

Unfortunately, in Green Lantern, the character style is to render people with exaggerated proportions, and these sketches seem to suggest that the treatment might go in that direction, too. That sort of character style works in GL, but I have grave doubts about it working in Star Trek.

Consequently, I'm unimpressed, and actually concerned.

Agreed. I too also love Green Lantern, but I don't necessarily want to see its style on a new Star Trek cartoon (nor do I want to see the style of Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Dragons: Riders of Berk just slavishly copied for any new animated series based on Star Trek, either.)

As I've said (and shown) before, this style is the kind of style that should be done for a new series:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHyGlqsjsQ[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8B3PssFHw[/yt]

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd rather see something more stylized and cartoony than that.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^Why?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Attempts at realistic characters in animation only highlights their unreality and strains suspension of disbelief. Stylized characters are easier to accept on their own terms without the constant reminders that you're not watching real people. If that makes sense.

 

[Danger Ace]

By Peter Markowski, who's worked for Warner Bros on their Green Lantern animated series. I've just gone from "meh" on a potential new animated series to "YES PLEASE!"

Fingers crossed Into Darkness is a big hit and we get something like this soon after.

We reach as I share your enthusiasm. It does look good. Better than "Clone Wars."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^Why?

because that approach ignores every artistic, expressive advantage of character animation while not being persuasively realistic in any way. It's an admirable effort for a production with limited resources using OTS software, but there's nothing dynamic or visually imaginative enough there to hold the attention of a large audience expecting a professional production.

More simply, one frame of The Incredibles is more beautiful and exciting than the entirety of The Polar Express.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Attempts at realistic characters in animation only highlights their unreality and strains suspension of disbelief. Stylized characters are easier to accept on their own terms without the constant reminders that you're not watching real people. If that makes sense.

That makes perfect sense to me, and I totally agree.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Why?

because that approach ignores every artistic, expressive advantage of character animation while not being persuasively realistic in any way. It's an admirable effort for a production with limited resources using OTS software, but there's nothing dynamic or visually imaginative enough there to hold the attention of a large audience expecting a professional production.

More simply, one frame of The Incredibles is more beautiful and exciting than the entirety of The Polar Express.

True story. I too would rather see something stylistic that has energy and isn't dedicated to being "photorealistic." While I loved comic artist Gorden Purchell and Jerome K. Moore tenure on DC's STAR TREK comics , but really loved the more stylistic impression of the universe from Tom Sutton and Pablo Marcos. And I really loved Paul Pope's STAR TREK short comic in WIRED.

 

[Admiral2]

I hate to be critical, but what we see here is the easy part. The hard part is getting the characters right. And we don't see any of that, here.

Those vague tiny featureless renders of Kirk, Spock, and some red shirt dwarfed by the Big Alien Things don't count.

Furthermore, the unrealistic proportions of the characters that we can discern don't impress me at all; quite the opposite, actually. I can only hope that the character drawings here are thumbnail placeholders in lieu of actual character drawings to be inserted once it's figured out exactly how to draw them (e.g., regard a faceless Spock).

Unfortunately, in Green Lantern, the character style is to render people with exaggerated proportions, and these sketches seem to suggest that the treatment might go in that direction, too. That sort of character style works in GL, but I have grave doubts about it working in Star Trek.

Consequently, I'm unimpressed, and actually concerned.

Agreed. I too also love Green Lantern, but I don't necessarily want to see its style on a new Star Trek cartoon (nor do I want to see the style of Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Dragons: Riders of Berk just slavishly copied for any new animated series based on Star Trek, either.)

As I've said (and shown) before, this style is the kind of style that should be done for a new series:

Frankly, SZ, I don't get your fascination with Aurora. It isn't just the soulless characters and animation. The whole concept is boring. It's just April O'Neill and a T'Pol clone delivering stuff...and that "teaser" just flat out promises a stupid episode 2.

 

[BillJ]

True story. I too would rather see something stylistic that has energy and isn't dedicated to being "photorealistic." While I loved comic artist Gorden Purchell and Jerome K. Moore tenure on DC's STAR TREK comics , but really loved the more stylistic impression of the universe from Tom Sutton and Pablo Marcos. And I really loved Paul Pope's STAR TREK short comic in WIRED.

I would put Gray Morrow on that list as well.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I hate to be critical, but what we see here is the easy part. The hard part is getting the characters right. And we don't see any of that, here.

Those vague tiny featureless renders of Kirk, Spock, and some red shirt dwarfed by the Big Alien Things don't count.

Furthermore, the unrealistic proportions of the characters that we can discern don't impress me at all; quite the opposite, actually. I can only hope that the character drawings here are thumbnail placeholders in lieu of actual character drawings to be inserted once it's figured out exactly how to draw them (e.g., regard a faceless Spock).

Unfortunately, in Green Lantern, the character style is to render people with exaggerated proportions, and these sketches seem to suggest that the treatment might go in that direction, too. That sort of character style works in GL, but I have grave doubts about it working in Star Trek.

Consequently, I'm unimpressed, and actually concerned.

Agreed. I too also love Green Lantern, but I don't necessarily want to see its style on a new Star Trek cartoon (nor do I want to see the style of Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Dragons: Riders of Berk just slavishly copied for any new animated series based on Star Trek, either.)

As I've said (and shown) before, this style is the kind of style that should be done for a new series:

Frankly, SZ, I don't get your fascination with Aurora. It isn't just the soulless characters and animation. The whole concept is boring. It's just April O'Neill and a T'Pol clone delivering stuff...and that "teaser" just flat out promises a stupid episode 2.

Actually, it's earning raves because it's a different take on Star Trek-the civilian side that we rarely ever see in the shows, novels, and movies. Also, it hearkens back to the 1960's show somewhat. That, and people who've see all of it (not just some-check out the whole movie) feel that it's a better story the the 2009 movie or the upcoming one.

 

[BillJ]

That, and people who've see all of it (not just some-check out the whole movie) feel that it's a better story the the 2009 movie or the upcoming one.

Taste is subjective, but I'm confused. How can someone feel the story is better than Star Trek Into Darkness when very few folks have actually seen it?

That kind of destroys any credibility of statements about its quality.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

the civilian side that we rarely ever see in the shows, novels, and movies.

Probably becuase it is (and I mean no offense) boring as hell.

Also, it hearkens back to the 1960's show somewhat.

The 1960s show had people going on fun space adventures and getting involved with all sorts of weird crap. Kind of like Star Trek 2009 did.

This thing sounds like it has two people hauling crap form one place to another and aren't going to deal with the weird crap or basic space adventure stuff and if they did it would either eat them alive or else it look ridiculous as hell that some freighter could handle stuff state of the art starships have trouble with.

That, and people who've see all of it (not just some-check out the whole movie) feel that it's a better story the the 2009 movie or the upcoming one.

As said before how the hell would they know it its a better story than Into Darkness which hasn't come out yet?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Probably because it is (and I mean no offense) boring as hell.

Boring to you, not to the millions of people who have read similar stories in science fiction and fantasy. Have you ever read the two Han Solo books? Or the Lando Calrissian books? Or any other book about space traders/space commerce? All of them are as exciting as stories based around military characters and adventures.

The 1960s show had people going on fun space adventures and getting involved with all sorts of weird crap. Kind of like Star Trek 2009 did.

But they didn't have the adventures of people like Harry Mudd doing his thing and getting out of scrapes, did they? Since they didn't, this is the first.

This thing sounds like it has two people hauling crap form one place to another and aren't going to deal with the weird crap or basic space adventure stuff and if they did it would either eat them alive or else it look ridiculous as hell that some freighter could handle stuff state of the art starship have trouble with.

As I said above, it'll have what stories like this have-the adventures of a civilian spacer and how the ship cargo from place to place-stories that have existed in literary sci-fi for years. To paraphrase the opening lines from a famous early 1960s police procedural, 'There are 1,000 stories of the big galaxy-this is one of them.'

As said before how the hell would they know it its a better story than Into Darkness which hasn't come out yet?

Failure on my part-I should have indicated the 2009 movie only. People don't like the 2009 movie, and feel that the current movie will be more of the same. To such people, this story has more heart than the 2009 movie and the upcoming one. Also, many fans have probably wondered about what civilian life in the Star Trek universe is like-this show displayes that (and displays that quite well.)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Probably because it is (and I mean no offense) boring as hell.

Boring to you, not to the millions of people who have read similar stories in science fiction and fantasy. Have you ever read the two Han Solo books? Or the Lando Calrissian books?
Or any other book about space traders/space commerce? All of them are as exciting as stories based around military characters and adventures.

Nope and I don't really don't care.

The 1960s show had people going on fun space adventures and getting involved with all sorts of weird crap. Kind of like Star Trek 2009 did.

But they didn't have the adventures of people like Harry Mudd doing his thing and getting out of scrapes, did they? Since they didn't, this is the first.

Except Harry Mudd didn't get out of his scrapes Kirk threw his ass in the brig for either almost getting them killed twice or generally making their lives difficult by either almost unleashing an army of androids who anted to take over the universe or whatever the hell that thing with the love potion stuff from TAS was about.

Hell he never factored into anything until after he ran into the Enterprise

This thing sounds like it has two people hauling crap form one place to another and aren't going to deal with the weird crap or basic space adventure stuff and if they did it would either eat them alive or else it look ridiculous as hell that some freighter could handle stuff state of the art starship have trouble with.

As I said above, it'll have what stories like this have-the adventures of a civilian spacer and how the ship cargo from place to place-stories that have existed in literary sci-fi for years.

Again sounds boring.

To paraphrase the opening lines from a famous early 1960s police procedural, 'There are 1,000 stories of the big galaxy-this is one of them.'

And I tend to like the ones that are about space adventures

As said before how the hell would they know it its a better story than Into Darkness which hasn't come out yet?

Failure on my part-I should have indicated the 2009 movie only. People don't like the 2009 movie, and feel that the current movie will be more of the same.

How nice for them.

To such people, this story has more heart than the 2009 movie and the upcoming one.

The same people who probably either don't like TOS or think it was the same as TNG basically.

Also, many fans have probably wondered about what civilian life in the Star Trek universe is like-this show displayes that (and displays that quite well.)

You assume that.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

In a writing sense, the Federation pretty much exists to justify the existence of Starfleet, which exists solely to legitimize the Enterprise and her crew and to give their mission purpose. It's supposed to be in the background. I find that satisfying enough.

 

[BillJ]

In a writing sense, the Federation pretty much exists to justify the existence of Starfleet, which exists solely to legitimize the Enterprise and her crew and to give their mission purpose. It's supposed to be in the background. I find that satisfying enough.

This.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

In a writing sense, the Federation pretty much exists to justify the existence of Starfleet, which exists solely to legitimize the Enterprise and her crew and to give their mission purpose. It's supposed to be in the background. I find that satisfying enough.

If anything the day to day stuff in the federation would be kind of boring, I mean most problems are probably dealt with already, attacks from other empires or powerful entities are less common (so you can't get drama from that) and if they do show up they have to be reasonably threatening to an area that should be well defended and as such should be rare or it get tedious and predictable, and there can't be too much strange new stuff seeing as the area would have been heavily charted and explored by now.

So, really the only things a starship could do in the place are some minor diplomatic missions, patrols against minor annoyances, and hauling crap from one starbases or planet to another or some of those other thing that really only explained why the Enterprise was in the area when the actually interesting stuff happened.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Aurora was very well conceived, but this is especially so considering its genre as a fan-film/tribute to Star Trek. Although I loved the first story, I am a Trek fan who's receptive to fan-films; I wouldn't expect a more general audience to find it nearly as interesting as I did. Also, its animation style is not ready for prime time, and I would be surprised if Vining himself thought it was.