ENTERPRISE design in the new film? (How many changes?)

[seigezunt]

Cary L. Brown said:
It's really simple... if the 1701 is in this film, it should have detailing appropriate to the timeframe (TOS? WNMHGB? Cage? Earlier?) and should otherwise look like this in terms of quality, geometry, and rendering:

I agree. I don't understand criticism that throw out the original E as being outdated. Outdated? It's 23rd Century spaceship! How can it be outdated? And she's lovely.

 

[OmarB]

It should look the same as TOS, though I do think that shots close up to the ship should show it's construction somewhat like getting p close to a military sub or ship. It should have bolts, rivets, what have you but pull back and it's the same ship.

So same look but more detail up close.

 

[Dan_Crout]

Actually, looking at the model at the Smithsonian, if you could capture the look and feel of these pics, I think it could work fine as-is.

http://www.atpm.com/7.01/washington-dc/index.shtml

These really surprised me.

Dan

 

[number6]

I'm a Mac guy.

 

[sturmde]

UWC Defiance said:
Lots of windows.

I've always asked this: Who's not to say that there are many windows we don't see because "transparent aluminum" with a small electromagnetic field applied is opaque?

Kirk opened a window in The Mark of Gideon, per se.... so there's at least one window. But why not 're-imagine' that in many unseen rooms, by touching a button, the opaque outer wall becomes transparent?

It fits with what we "know" of Trek era tech. Give me transparent aluminum i.r.l., and I'm sure it would go dark with a small current applied.

Real world LCD materials do exactly that.

 

[Praetor]

^^Good call. Why not?

As long as she still looks like she did on TOS.

 

[Maurice]

Ptrope said:

JuanBolio said:
Also, the captain's chair is set much closer to the helm console.

I wouldn't say "much" closer - no more than about 6" - 8", at most. It was elevated, but as you can see in these shots, it's only pushed back slightly in the series:

"The Cage"

"Charlie X"

Going back to this, between The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before they built the "box" under the chair, and moved the chair to the back of it, thus giving the captain a place to put his feet.

I found an angle of the series bridge that better matches the Cage example:

"The Cage"
"The Corbomite Maneuver"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Also, Kirk's command chair moved backward and forward by a foot or two depending on shooting requirements.

 

[Stardate]

seigezunt said:: I agree. I don't understand criticism that throw out the original E as being outdated. Outdated? It's 23rd Century spaceship! How can it be outdated? And she's lovely.

Original Enterprise isn't from the 23th century, it was design by Matt" Jefferies in 1960s what he thought how 23th century starship would look like, 300 years into the future. He did good job but like all design it can get outdated or obsolete after 20-30 or 40 years. I can take f.e. how some cars made in 60s look crappy compare to concept cars who is coming out next 10 years. Unfortunately original Enterprise has reach same turning point.

 

[Bones]

Sharr Khan said:
"Star Trek" isn't a freaken cult meant for the elite few...

Good signature for somebody...

 

[Bones]

The starfield must be visible thru the hull.

The nacelles must dissolve into black granules. At times there must be large pits of black granules dissolved in the primary hull.

The ship should periodically develop antennae sticking out of the nacelles. They should inexplicably show up on the ship then disappear throught the movie.

There can only be three shots of the ship that are constantly reused throught the entire movie. These should be stock footage leftover from "The Cage".

And the ship should be circling a planet with red, blue, or yellow clouds that all look identical (except for the color) except for two scenes where (in the first scene) the ship is seen near an asteroid made from dog poop. In the second scene the asteroid is renamed but we get the exact same footage of the dog poop asteroid.

This is cannon. Shoot me now.

 

[DaveyNY]

Plum said:
There already are, the saucers are two boobs while the nacelles are cocks. Symbolism is so lost on some people.

Naaahhhh....

Ya gotta look at Her from a much different perspective....


Picture yerself floating just behind Her and up about 60 degrees off the forward plane....


What you will see, is a breath-taking, lovely, creamy-white, naked Lady, laying on Her back with Her knees up, legs spread wide, and arms curled up behind Her head.
(Then picture that, with the shuttlebay doors open!)


NOW, tell me THAT"S NOT A SEXY SIGHT!!!

 

[Blip]

Vejur said:

seigezunt said:: I agree. I don't understand criticism that throw out the original E as being outdated. Outdated? It's 23rd Century spaceship! How can it be outdated? And she's lovely.

Original Enterprise isn't from the 23th century, it was design by Matt" Jefferies in 1960s what he thought how 23th century starship would look like, 300 years into the future. He did good job but like all design it can get outdated or obsolete after 20-30 or 40 years. I can take f.e. how some cars made in 60s look crappy compare to concept cars who is coming out next 10 years. Unfortunately original Enterprise has reach same turning point.

In your opinion, eh Vejur?

 

[Stardate]

of course in mine opinion and i think i ain't the only one that feel like that. I do respect other opinion but when some people says ,,not change anything,, or ,,Enterprise scold look like on the Cage,, i say c´mon are you kidding me. I just do not agree using 40 years old design for big budget movie in 2007.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Vejur said: of course in mine opinion and i think i ain't the only one that feel like that. I do respect other opinion but when some people says ,,not change anything,, or ,,Enterprise scold look like on the Cage,, i say c´mon are you kidding me. I just do not agree using 40 years old design for big budget movie in 2007.

We all get it, "Vejur." We know that you, and a few others, really, REALLY R-E-A-L-L-Y want to throw away what's there in place of something "new and kewl" that you can think of as your own.

Fine. No Problem. Nothing wrong with that...

UNLESS YOU TRY TO PASS IT OFF AS BEING SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH.

You want to see a "sports car" design that has nothing to do with the 1701 design? Fine. No reason we can't see exactly that. PROVIDED, of course, that it's not called the "USS Enterprise, NCC-1701."

My oft-repeated analogy still holds true. You may be an amazing painter, and you may do a masterpiece painting of your girlfriend. Great. It may gain critical acclaim... great.

But the moment you decide to call it the Mona Lisa, and to suggest that the "original Mona Lisa" is outdated and should be replaced by yours, you've crossed a line that makes you into a joke.

Everyone knows what the Mona Lisa looks like. If people go to a museum to see the Mona Lisa and see your painting, being advertised as "The Mona Lisa"... they'll be PISSED. They'll feel that they've been "gamed." And they'll be RIGHT.

Your work might be fantastic, but it will actually be HURT by virtue of having been advertised as something that it's not. Instead of judging it on its own merits, everyone who sees it will be comparing it to the original. And since your work won't be that original that everyone knows, they'll all call it CRAP.

If you'd called it something else, they might never have noticed it at all... and that's why you'd PULL THE STUNT of calling something new by the same name as something old and well-recognized.

You'd be hoping that YOUR WORK would somehow "replace" the original.

You're basically creating a situation where you're in competition with the original. You'll inevitably polarize the audience... some may like yours better, some will prefer the original, and there will be CONFLICT.

If the original was crap, and the new is better, the new may "win." Of course, if that's the case... wouldn't the new have done just as well WITHOUT that "competition?" And in the process, might it not have driven away some portion of its audience? (Never a good idea, creating hostility with your target audience!).

We, and pretty much the whole freakin' WORLD, know what the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, looks like. Not everyone knows where frame stanchion X-42-J9243_QQ-34 is... ... but virtually anyone you run into on the street (even those who HATE Star Trek) will recognize the original ship.

In that particular competition, any "new design" is inevitably going to LOSE if it tries to replace the original one.

You want a new ship design... call it something else. Call it the "Vanguard" or the "Ulysses" or the "Vega" or the "Luna" or the "Joe's Spaceship" or ANYTHING... just don't try to fool the audience into accepting your "something new" as being the NCC-1701. They'll never buy it, and you'll piss off the audience in the process.

 

[Franklin]

It's easy to think of the Enterprise as more or less a character like Kirk or Spock. And just like the other characters, I'm sure it'll have a different look or feel.
But I hope the only real changes would have to be to add details that take advantage of the ship appearing on the big screen. In other words, not too many doo dads that break up that classic look.
The design is so clean and looks good from almost any angle. Prejudice for Trek aside, it's the most beautiful space ship in science fiction (well, it and the refit NCC-1701). Fraternal twins.

 

[Woulfe]

The Enterprise, NCC-1701, is so reconisable that it got on a POSTAGE STAMP for crying out loud, everyone knows what it looks like, and I mean EVERYONE, even people in other COUNTRIES, the film will be shown over-seas you know.

If the ship doesn't look like how EVERYONE remembers it looking you can kiss Star Trek good bye, yes you can add more detail, yes you can add aztecing, but to change the overall design you're just asking for trouble, period.

BESIDES, if you went to ILM with a "New and Kewl" design they'd laugh at you to your face and say "You must be jokeing !" these guys love the old gal, they wouldn't dare change the lady to the point that folks wouldn't know her when they saw her, not ILM, never in a million years.

What you have is the most reconized ship in all of Sci-fi !

Just look at a poll if you don't belive us who know this allready, the Enterprise, NCC-1701 is like Micky Mouse, oh lets give Micky a compleate change, Disney would never go for it, even Micky done in CGI still has the same design he's had for nearly 50 some odd years.

We're talking a piece of Americana here, an Icon, I know, lets go change Mount Rushmore, give Lincon an Ipod and things like that because that's "New and Kewl"

While were at it let's give the Staute Of Liberty a complete make-over, bigger brests, yadda yadda yadda, becuse she's so 2 centuries behind the times.

I mean really have any of you listened to yourselves over the last few months, weeks, days ?

You want to take the most reconizable Space Ship ever and thow it away becuse it's not "New and Kewl" enough for you ?

Pllllllleeeeaaaassssssseeeeeeeeee.

It would be diffrent if Star Trek hadn't gone into Syndication in the 1970's to be shown all over the WORLD these past 40 some odd years, it'd be diffrent if Star Trek after being canceld in 1969 had just died right there and then.

BUT, that isn't what happened.

What happened is it baecame a big success all over the WORLD, to the point that if you took a poll about famous space ships in Sci-Fi the Enterprise, NCC-1701 would rank pretty high on the list, the other versions coming in lower just under the first one.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

This isn't just some "Opinion" of a OLD Star Trek fan. This happens to be the TRUTH. It just takes an OLD Star Trek Fan to put you "New and Kew" folks in the right place

If I had a dime everytime someone wanted something "New and Kewl" i'd be a rich man indeed.

- W -
* My $0.02 View Of Things Right Now *

P.S. Don't belive me ? Go to D.C. to a little museum and see for yourself how many famous sci-fi space ships are there for all the world to see.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

The way it looks in the remastered episodes or in STTMP would be cool. Maybe with more lights/windows/doo-dads if they need to update it.

 

[Vektor]

It’s true that the TOS Enterprise is about as iconic as it gets in terms of sci-fi spaceships, but as with so many other things, Trek fans tend to overestimate the importance of such things to the rest of the population at large. Show ten random people a picture of the Enterprise and probably nine of them will instantly recognize it. But try withholding the picture and asking the same ten people to describe the ship in detail and you will probably get ten wildly different answers. Sure, most of them will be able to tell you it had a big, round saucer in front, a cigar-shape below with a funky satellite dish mounted on it, and a couple of big, tubular engines on the back with spinning, glowy things on the front. Most of them could probably tell you approximately what color the hull and other major parts were and what the registry number was. Maybe half could tell you where the bridge was supposed to be. A few would probably know where the hangar deck was located. One or two might be able to tell you how many impulse engines it had or how many fins (intercoolers) there were on the backs of the engine nacelles. I’d be surprised if even one of them knew how many windows there were on the side of the secondary hull or what the angle of the leading edge of the neck was or how many grill panels there were on the insides of the engine struts.

The fact is, most people aren’t intimately familiar with every little detail of the ship’s design. They know the general configuration and certain distinctive elements like the nacelle caps and the copper colored deflector dish, but I don’t doubt for a minute that you could change almost everything else in various subtle ways and the vast majority of people out there would be none the wiser.

Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong or glaringly “out of date” about the original design and that it would look perfectly spectacular on the big screen using modern photography and special effects. On the other hand, I’ll be surprised if they don’t make at least a few changes, mostly to add visual detail. All in all, though, I’ll bet what we wind up with looks very much like the ship from TOS when viewed from typical distances and perspectives.

 

[ancient]

The Mona Lisa was a man, baby!

In any case, I agree Vektor, hell, I probably won't notice any minor changes they make either, even though I'm a fan. I think Cary's example is a good one to combine with yours. After all, asking 10 people to describe the Mona Lisa will probably yield 10 different results too. "What kind of clothes is she wearing?" "What's in the background?"

In that sense, creating a similar forgery would fool most people. Putting a race car in the background to make it a kweler painting that appeals to hip teens though...yeah, people'll know it's not genuine.