Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise

[Captain X]

I already asked this in the STXI forum and didn't get much response, so I thought I'd ask it here, particuliarly because I'd be curious as to what Mr. Probert and Mr. Sternbach think. Hypothetically (and ignoring what's been done in TOS-R and STXI), if someone were to make an updated version of TOS, would you rather see an updated, more detailed version of the original 1701 (similar to what deg3D or Vektor did), or a kind of "un"-refit version of the movie-era Enterprise, meaning that it would have basically the same saucer and engineering hull and still have the same level of detail, but be fitted with TOS versions of the superstructure, nacelles & pylons, etc.?

 

[Dan_Crout]

Regardless of the function of the facility (I think it's ground based as well), it looks to me like they filmed this inside one of the huge blimp hangars. Perhaps this was in Hangar One at Moffett Field near San Francisco?

It is a blimp hanger, but it's down in Tustin, CA (south of LA). Some of the first Pine-Kirk photos were snapped of him running around the corner of Hanger B in his red cadet's uni.

The scene ties into another location shoot at Cal State Northridge (more cadet shots); I would assume that it's from the same sequence in the movie.

More I look at the ship, better I like her. Interiors, less so.

Dan

 

[ahkyahnan]

Ok, here are my completed speculative views with shape comparisons to the original ship:

This design, especially the bow view, really reminds me of an old fan design for a TMP era Enterprise refit using Excelsior nacelles, that appeared in a late-80's issue of Starlog.

Jackill's later redrew it for Jackill's Volume 3 and named it the Solaris I believe.

Mark

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm still waiting for Rick to chime in on which of the speculations is the closest to the actual case.

 

[ahkyahnan]

I don't really buy the idea that you absolutely have to reboot the series to connect with a younger audience. I rarely compare Trek with Star Wars, but beginning in 1998 or whatever, my then 7 year-old nephew connected perfectly fine with the Star Wars prequels, even though they generally retained the same visual style of the first Star Wars which came out when his mother was only around 7 years-old herself.

And he also fell in love with the original three Star Wars movies, and still watches them all. Granted there are some differences, but you can still watch the first three 'modern' movies in a row, and then watch New Hope without feeling that you've just switched on a completely different movie franchise. Those 3 prequels did well at the box office, looked great onscreen, and still maintained a strong continuity with what preceded them a couple decades before. So I believe it can be done. I'm not saying the new Trek is doing anything wrong...it is Hollywood afterall...but I think it's more a matter of choice than necessity.

Mark

 

[Santaman]

I watched the TMP DE dvd yesterday and of course I can't help it to watch the tour around the refitted Enterprise, which makes me hate the Rebootprise even more now, it lacks everything Jefferies and Proberts Enterprises have, it has no grace and to me its like a molten puddle of white goo instead of a starship also the disco deflector dish of that thing reminds me of an updated version of those little umbrellas you get in your cocktails..

 

[Blip]

I watched the TMP DE dvd yesterday and of course I can't help it to watch the tour around the refitted Enterprise, which makes me hate the Rebootprise even more now, it lacks everything Jefferies and Proberts Enterprises have, it has no grace and to me its like a molten puddle of white goo instead of a starship also the disco deflector dish of that thing reminds me of an updated version of those little umbrellas you get in your cocktails..

Funny, so did I! And, I agree entirely.

 

[Probert]

I don't really buy the idea that you absolutely have to reboot the series to connect with a younger audience.

Well, the (unofficial) word is, that's exactly what they're doing.

On an unrelated note, while giving an 'art lesson' to one of my grandchildrens' first grade class (drawing faces), I tossed in a Vulcan-type face and asked if anyone knew who this might be. The answers I got ranged from 'an angry person' to 'the Devil'. When I said Spock, nobody knew who that was.

So it makes sense to bring the franchise down to a whole new generation who can relate to today's prevalent hip-happening makes-no-sense glitzy look. Besides, look at whole the new toy avalanche this will create.

Andrew-

 

[Santaman]

Now thats what I call a rather depressive scenario..

As for the rest, thanks again for the refit, I don't know if you ever watch TMP's tour around the refitted Enterprise yourself much but in any case I guess you noticed here and there that your work was very much appreciated by a lot of people.

 

[SonicRanger]

^^^

But TMP was also an example of two things for which the new film is being criticized:

(1) TMP was a visual "reboot" of sorts -- everything looked different: the Enterprise inside and out, the uniforms, the hairstyles, the Klingons had new uniforms and makeup, the Andorians had new antenna and forehead ridges, etc. But the characters were, at their essence, the same people. The '60s look was gone, though, replaced by the "contemporary" '70s look.

(2) TMP was a Star-War-fueled special effects extravaganza. The plot was very thin and recycled from TOS episodes. But a huge amount of time and money and effort was spent on the special effects. When one special effects company was turning out disappointing results, they were fired, and other company was hired. Most of the film is just one special effects scene after another: lengthy fly-bys, the wormhole, the spacewalks, etc. And some of the other plot ideas, including an emergency saucer separation and a battle with the Klingons, would've made the film even more dependent on special effects. TMP was mainly about showing off special effects on the big screen.

TMP is held up as such a lofty example of Trek on the big screen, but the new film is closer to what TMP did than many people are willing to admit.

 

[Santaman]

^^True, but especially the Enterprise looked and felt the same, there V shape of the pylons, the indent at the bottom of the saucer, the way the bridge looks and lots of other little details just made it easy to believe she was still the same ship, the proportions are just right, with the Rebootprise I never have and never will have the feeling that thats the Enterprise, its too different and again IMHO just ugly with not a hint of grace that the original and the refit had.

Its like looking at a movie about HMS Hood with the director using HMS Nelson to portray the Hood, yes they both are big vessels of the big gun era but they also don't look anything alike.

 

[Rick Sternbach]

I'm still waiting for Rick to chime in on which of the speculations is the closest to the actual case.

I haven't matched up the speculation orthos to the views I've seen, but I might get around to it after the weekend. I don't have a good sense of the exact size of the reboot Ent, so I can't make a perfect scale match, but basic proportions might not be too difficult.

Rick

 

[Ronald Held]

I agree that no reboot of TOS was necessary for new fans.
TMP was a sort of visual reboot but it did not replace what had gone before it.

 

[JuanBolio]

I agree that no reboot of TOS was necessary for new fans.
TMP was a sort of visual reboot but it did not replace what had gone before it.

Consider this - in order for a prequel to be truly suspenseful, rebooting or changing history is necessary. Otherwise we already know that the main cast won't die, Vulcan and Earth are totally safe, etc...

 

[Praetor]

I have a theory for why the Abramsprise resembles a mishmash of the TOS E and the TMP E:

The initial attack by the Romulans may be of such grand scale (obliterating the Klingon Fleet anyone?) that the Federation reallocates tons and tons of credits into R&D of tech that they didn't in the original timeline. By the time the Abramsprise is launched, its level of technology ends up in a Phase II place, more advanced than the original timeline, a mishmash of TOS and previously underdeveloped tech.

(I still hate the ship, but at least that puts the ship in a slightly better context.)

 

[Probert]

Now thats what I call a rather depressive scenario..

Sorry.

As for the rest, thanks again for the refit, I don't know if you ever watch TMP's tour around the refitted Enterprise yourself much but in any case I guess you noticed here and there that your work was very much appreciated by a lot of people.

Thank you. It's a real complement reading all the great reactions, but remember that Richard Taylor was the Art Director. I enlarged the saucer and provided design sketches updating the Matt Jefferies / Joe Jennings Phase II Enterprise,... all approved by Richard, while he designed the warp engines himself. Once that was finished, the miniature was fabricated, painted & detailed by a small mega-talented collection of modelers... and that is what really keeps blowing us all away.

And addressing other observations about TMP's 'quasi-rebooting,... yes, it was a giant leap for Trek-kind but it's look was a logical design progression,... not someone's obtuse ego-orgasmic head-trip.

Andrew-

 

[SonicRanger]

And addressing other observations about TMP's 'quasi-rebooting,... yes, it was a giant leap for Trek-kind but it's look was a logical design progression,... not someone's obtuse ego-orgasmic head-trip.

Poppycock.

Jefferies and Jennings made a bunch of aesthetic (not logical) changes to the TOS Enterprise design for Phase II mostly just for the sake of making changes and updating the look for the '70s. Then the TMP team made more aesthetic changes and added way more detail for the big screen so that it'd look believable on a 60-foot screen, and they had more money to spend, so it was fancier.

There is no "logic" to adding huge windows for an arboretum, changing the nacelles from a circular cross-section to a rectangular one, recessing the dish and making it glow blue, etc. All of those are aesthetic, not logical, choices that a series of people made so that it would look cooler, better, believable, etc. To insist that the changes to the Enterprise design (and the bridge, uniforms, Klingons, Andorians, etc) were logical choices is downright silly. It isn't a logical progression from TOS to make the bridge circular instead of angular -- it was a choice that someone thought looked good and more futuristic, and they could afford it with more money.

To deny that the production design was not a product of its time (e.g., those who keep calling the TOS/TMP designs timeless) is also silly -- one need not look any farther than the colors of the Rec Room and uniforms, the haircuts, McCoy's disco outfit, etc. Aesthetic choices were made in those designs, and those choices were embedded in the 1970s, reflecting that zeitgeist.

The STXI production design and new Enterprise are no more or less "someone's obtuse ego-orgasmic head-trip" than the changes for Phase II and TMP. Both involve updating the TOS design for the big screen using a fresh aesthetic, a lot more money, and the newest cinematic technology.

 

[Vance]

Whoa, Sonic...

Did you just tell off one of the guys responsible for the TMP Enterprise?

There were quite a few reasons that GR wanted the Enterprise to be updated, not the least of which was that they weren't entirely sure where all the legalities of the Gray Lady were (GR had sold rights willy nilly for years, and actually lost TRACK of many of them). The original 11' model had been donated to the Smithsonian and most of the miniatures lost...

Also, there was the question about the detail level, particularly on the nacelles, the '70s aesthetic' was a big factor too, etc.

But, aside from the 'Star Destroyer' Titan Enterprise, the two Phase II versions and the TMP version all went from a logical direction from the TOS Enterprise. Yes, details were added, aztecking on the hull, lighted and enlarged windows, actual visible phaser mounts, the torpedo launcer, but she maintained the same basic lines and design philosophy, and that desire for FUNCTION, which started from Jefferies, continued on.

This ship.. is a CGI fad, really, which will need redone again and again each time they want to do a sequel for this movie. The design already looks dated to video game fans, because it uses last year's design cues for what's 'retro'. It's a mish-mash of parts, not born of a consensus of committee, but of each committee member adding his 'piece' to the overall work. It's like someone putting the hood of an Edsel, the fins of a classic Mustang, onto the chasis of a 2004 Buick.

 

[Blip]

*snip*

While I may agree with some of your postulations (for example changing the bridge set to a giant blancmange mold, circular displays, easily dated colour schemes), I certainly don't agree with the arrogant manner in which they were presented - especially directed towards someone we're damned lucky to have frequenting these forums, and who certainly has a more valid viewpoint on the whole thing than you or I are ever likely to have.

That, I think you'll find, is poppycock.

 

[SonicRanger]

Whoa, Sonic...

Did you just tell off one of the guys responsible for the TMP Enterprise?

No, not "tell off." He gave his opinion. I gave my reaction to his. Simple as that. It was pretty civil. We're having a discussion and debate here. I didn't call him a foul name, nor did I say anything remotely as belittling as "someone's obtuse ego-orgasmic head-trip."

I certainly don't agree with the arrogant manner in which they were presented - especially directed towards someone we're damned lucky to have frequenting these forums, and who certainly has a more valid viewpoint on the whole thing than you or I are ever likely to have.

Regardless of whether or not I agree regarding your stance on the validity of our opinions versus his, I refer again to his comment about "someone's obtuse ego-orgasmic head-trip" if you want to contend I was being arrogant.

... It's a mish-mash of parts, not born of a consensus of committee, but of each committee member adding his 'piece' to the overall work. It's like someone putting the hood of an Edsel, the fins of a classic Mustang, onto the chasis of a 2004 Buick.

I don't think the components are nearly as mismatched as you suggest.

But if you'd like an explanation, we can harken back to Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and propose that there are several different contractors designing and building nacelles for Starfleet, and those contractors might be different than those hired to design and building the other sections.

... that desire for FUNCTION, which started from Jefferies, continued on...

I keep hearing this "function yields form" or "form follows function" argument, but it really doesn't hold water... or, at the very least, it is pretty leaky.

The first flaw is that we are dealing with imaginary technologies, materials, system, etc, so different people will imagine their function differently. And even when something as "technical" in the design as the warp nacelles are drastically changed in form from TOS to TMP (for, let's face it, aesthetic or arbitrary reasons due to licensing or whatever), the function component is just explained away with hand-waving: "Oh, it is a new design" or (as I mentioned above) "It is a different contractor." To say that function was decided first is complete bull -- the design came first.

Second, anyone who has studied the history and anthropology of technology would disagree that form is always dictated by function. Many social factors influence technology, everything from political decisions to "looking cool" for a customer or client. A new technology, even if it works perfectly, will fail if it is ugly, too expensive, falls into political disfavor, etc. Those who know the history of the M-16 will tell you that: changed were made to the design that make the rifle less deadly, heavier, slower, and more prone to jamming. Even things like missile systems and airplanes have heavy social factors influencing their designs. I'm going to pull a TGT here and recommend a few references: The Social Shaping of Technology by Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman, Elements for an Anthropology of Technology by Pierre Lemonnier, and The Social Construction of Technological Systems by Wiebe Bijker.