Enterprise Pic

[Sharr Khan]

Rattrap 64 said:
Is this really the full-sized Trek 11 Enterprise?

I like it.

I'm pretty sure that's Gabe Koerner's redesign which I happen to like myself and this bit from the trailer does share some visual cues from what we can see.

Sharr

 

[Galactic Alignment]

Is it? Damn unreliable websites. Guess I should've paid more attention to TrekBBS lately.

 

[cbspock]

To get back to the construction arguement, it seems that the ship is in peices, looks like no neck...

http://trekmovie.com/images/sttease/sttease_05.jpg


-Chris

 

[StarMan]

Definitely Gabe Koerner's design.

 

[Plum]

^^^
No it isn't. Read more threads.

 

[the_wildcard]

jon1701 said:
Bigger Version

I like the look of the engines.

I second that!

 

[Woulfe]

Big Honkin' Engines !

Kirk : Scotty, Let's see if this baby will go warp 12 !

~ Go Greased Lighting, Go Grease Lightning ~

- W -
* I'm sorry, a moment of weekness, it'll pass *

 

[trevanian]

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
The Enterprise in this pic looks like concept art, or a frame from an animatic. l honest to Christ can't figure out why concept art-level work has got so many people excited. If this is actually a final, then it says something about how little visual credibility means to filmgoers. (Unless maybe it looks better in motion? Guess I'll look for the trailer in a couple days and see what the high rez version plays like. Expectation is now low enough that I probably won't spit at the monitor.)

Now, after seeing the HD-teaser, do you still say this looks like an animatic?

I thought the still looked like concept art and wondered if in motion it would look like an animatic; in motion, this looks like a mediocre fx shot more than it looks like an animatic. I guess that is an improvement, but not much IMO.

As usual, I got no clue what you folks are happy about visually. But hey, this is like the Daniel Craig/Casino Royale thing; folks can lap that up all they want, while I will be happy with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and LICENCE TO KILL. I'll be content with pre-tampered-with TOS eps and TMP and TWOK and TFF.

 

[xortex]

The art designer should win an an academy award for not changing anything.

 

[ST-One]

trevanian said:
I thought the still looked like concept art and wondered if in motion it would look like an animatic; in motion, this looks like a mediocre fx shot more than it looks like an animatic. I guess that is an improvement, but not much IMO.

I expected as much...
Could you at least once set aside you hatred for CGI and view a great CG-animation such as this trailer from an objective point of view?
It isn't perfect (the far to thin hull plates) but I challenge you to show me any model-shot from any Star Trek-film or -show that matches the complexety and (industrial) beauty of this one.

trevanian said:
As usual, I got no clue what you folks are happy about visually. But hey, this is like the Daniel Craig/Casino Royale thing; folks can lap that up all they want, while I will be happy with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and LICENCE TO KILL. I'll be content with pre-tampered-with TOS eps and TMP and TWOK and TFF.

The ONLY real Bond was Roger Moore!

 

[starburst]

Roger Moore....your having a laugh aint ya!

Best 3 Bonds; Connery, Brosnon and Craig...but not in that order (and it depends on film)

Personally I love the new Bond film same as the new Batman...so I have high hopes the new Star Trek will be just the same, think about it before Batman Begins a Batman film would have been a deffinate mainstream no go.

 

[trevanian]

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
I thought the still looked like concept art and wondered if in motion it would look like an animatic; in motion, this looks like a mediocre fx shot more than it looks like an animatic. I guess that is an improvement, but not much IMO.

I expected as much...
Could you at least once set aside you hatred for CGI and view a great CG-animation such as this trailer from an objective point of view?
It isn't perfect (the far to thin hull plates) but I challenge you to show me any model-shot from any Star Trek-film or -show that matches the complexety and (industrial) beauty of this one.

It isn't hatred, as I've indicated time and again. I though the spaceship stuff in SOLARIS was incredible, and there are bits in SPACE COWBOYS that looks almost as good as that film's incredible miniature work. If you hold to those as high standards, then this stuff isn't even comparable. And as much as I hate the flick, EVENT HORIZON's model work (85 percent anyway) is damned near perfect.

Best vfx in a trek movie? ... maybe the nacelle-scraper as they leave drydock in TMP. I don't usually like super wide lenses cuz there is too much distortion, but on that shot it works.

Industrial beauty? That's what the whole drydock sequence in TMP is about anyway. Very few trek shots show people on the hull outside of TMP (gen, there's a matte painting of the downed -d that looks kinda okay, but that is done in TOUGH circumstances, daylight, as opposed to some sort of eclipse or night murk like this trailer.)

 

[starburst]

Thing is this is a teaser with footage that (likely) isnt going to be in the final film, so they wont have put as much work into these shots as the should be doing when it comes to what we will see in 11 months time.

I miss models too, always loved seeing photos of the various Trek minatures...but things change and you can do some things with a CG one that you cant with a physical (and vice a versa) so as long as they put the work in its going to look better than a model can.

 

[ST-One]

trevanian said:
If you hold to those as high standards, then this stuff isn't even comparable.

Then, please, explain why 'this stuff' isn't comparable.

trevanian said:
Best vfx in a trek movie? ... maybe the nacelle-scraper as they leave drydock in TMP. I don't usually like super wide lenses cuz there is too much distortion, but on that shot it works.

Yes, as great as the VFX-shots in TMP are they not nearly as complex as these...

 

[ST-One]

starburst said:
Thing is this is a teaser with footage that (likely) isnt going to be in the final film, so they wont have put as much work into these shots as the should be doing when it comes to what we will see in 11 months time.

I miss models too, always loved seeing photos of the various Trek minatures...but things change and you can do some things with a CG one that you cant with a physical (and vice a versa) so as long as they put the work in its going to look better than a model can.

Which in this case the CGI is at least equal to a real model.

 

[starburst]

ST-One said:

starburst said:
Thing is this is a teaser with footage that (likely) isnt going to be in the final film, so they wont have put as much work into these shots as the should be doing when it comes to what we will see in 11 months time.

I miss models too, always loved seeing photos of the various Trek minatures...but things change and you can do some things with a CG one that you cant with a physical (and vice a versa) so as long as they put the work in its going to look better than a model can.

Which in this case the CGI is at least equal to a real model.

Yup, and beautifull it is too

Shame its gonna be months and months (probably) before we see any more

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Woulfe said:

Big Honkin' Engines !

Kirk : Scotty, Let's see if this baby will go warp 12 !

~ Go Greased Lighting, Go Grease Lightning ~

- W -
* I'm sorry, a moment of weekness, it'll pass *

I think it is possible that the engines only look bigger due to Perspective Distortion [clicky]

If the 'virtual' camera was far away from the object, but Zoomed-in close with a telephoto lens, then you would get this affect of things in the backgroud looking abnormally large.

Perspective in that casewould be much differnt than if the 'camera' was placed gight in front of the saucer with no zoom at all...the nacelles would look smaller due to perspective.

 

[Woulfe]

^ I knew that, I was makeing a joke based on other people's observaions of them being huge like.

- W -
* Winks *

 

[RAMA]

trevanian said:

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
The Enterprise in this pic looks like concept art, or a frame from an animatic. l honest to Christ can't figure out why concept art-level work has got so many people excited. If this is actually a final, then it says something about how little visual credibility means to filmgoers. (Unless maybe it looks better in motion? Guess I'll look for the trailer in a couple days and see what the high rez version plays like. Expectation is now low enough that I probably won't spit at the monitor.)

Now, after seeing the HD-teaser, do you still say this looks like an animatic?

I thought the still looked like concept art and wondered if in motion it would look like an animatic; in motion, this looks like a mediocre fx shot more than it looks like an animatic. I guess that is an improvement, but not much IMO.

As usual, I got no clue what you folks are happy about visually. But hey, this is like the Daniel Craig/Casino Royale thing; folks can lap that up all they want, while I will be happy with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and LICENCE TO KILL. I'll be content with pre-tampered-with TOS eps and TMP and TWOK and TFF.

It look like this teaser had footage filmed JUST for the teaser....but its movie quality FX nevertheless.

"Tampered" with?? How ridiculous...that would assume that TOS, and the original movies had been edited, which they have not. Think with your head....its been 40 years, and we just won't get the same actors in the roles or the same designs. There are few alternatives...if fans want the franchise alive, we'll get a remake, reboot, whatever you want to call it!

And Casino Royale was the best Bond movie in many years!

RAMA

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Woulfe said:
^ I knew that, I was makeing a joke based on other people's observaions of them being huge like.

- W -

* Winks *

Sorry -- I was looking for one of the "Big Engine Believers" to give a response to, and your post was the first I noticed.