I noticed that you never answered my question re: why the original TOS 1701 was "dated" over in the "Art forum." But to THIS set of points... if the original ship design was so ugly, why do you think that people didn't just tune out the show and let it die? Why do you think that the best-selling plastic model kit ever was of this ship, and that virtually EVERY kid in the 1970 had built at least one? You have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE for the first one you ever saw, the TMP version. WE GET IT. But if any of your claims were true... the version YOU prefer would never have been seen, because nobody would've liked the original show enough to want to see it continued! Saying "Star Trek sucked, only the sequel series and movies were good" is like saying "Adults suck, I think the world should be populated only by children." The "child" stuff is only there because the "parent" show was there. The "child" characters, the "child" ship designs, etc, etc... all of those ONLY came to be because the original show was beloved enough to make it viable to DO that in the first place! The TOS 1701 is the original ship... and your preferred designs would NEVER have been seen, in any form, if it had "sucked" as much as you seem to think it does. You're welcome to like the later designs better... that's called PERSONAL TASTE, and your taste is clearly weighed towards things besides the original M.J. design. Fine... good for you. But enough with the "From the Mountaintop" declarations that the original sucks. All you do when you say that is annoy the significant proportion (and I'd say the MAJORITY) of people who really, really LIKE that design.
^^^He likely didn't answer because he really doesn't have an actual basis for his comments. Or maybe he can't communicate them well enough, given his previous post, which was next to unreadable. \S/
Wait a minute when did i say Star Trek sucked, for me not liking using orginal ENT in XI doesent mean i dont like TOS. Acually i like TOS but mainly for stories and acting is great(speaially Nimoy, Shatner, McCoy and Scotty). TOS ENT was made in 1960s with low bugdets was great during its TV runs in 1960s but for me watching it after 1990s is that TOS ENT just wont work.(my PERSONAL VIEW) in XI movie. "Then you havent been listened. I have stated couples off times it has a weak points f.e. thin neck, too long weak pylons, ugly nacelles. Ths is one of a reason i think TOS ENT is dated(my PERSONAL TASTE ).
True, but part of being a professional is accepting that you'll be exposed to an enormous amount of unfair criticism - especially on the Internet - and not letting it discourage you. "Opinions are like you-know-whats" and all that. It helps to know for yourself why you do the work and for who's sake you do it - and there's no "right" answer to that, as long as you have one that works for you. Gabe's got his head on straight.
I like what Mo here did as far as here's what we might see in Star Trek around Dec 2008, will we get that ? Possibly not 100% just like that, but with ILM doing things we just might get something really close to that. - W - * The guys and gals at ILM love the old grey lady *
Yeah... there's nothing WRONG with trying to replicate something that's been seen before. Imagine applying the same mindset to the movie "Titanic." "Well, the design of the Titanic is so yesterday... I think we need to make it a catamaran hull with Indian Casino lighting and big above-surface jet engine propulsion!" A GOOD special-effect team will not feel the need to "rethink" absolutely everything... that's the sign of an egomaniac, not an artist. And the two aren't NECESSARILY the same thing...
I could see this happening at some point. Studios are always trying to take classic stories and put some kind of twist in it. Remember that Romeo + Juliet movie in 1996? How about the brand new cruise starship U.S.S. Titanic, built to withstand impacts from large asteroids?