RAMA said:
General_Custer said:
Cawley just posted and I agree with him. The Enterprise design from Jeffreys is Timeless
Yes, but only in the context of reruns. It is not, and CANNOT be used in a contemporary $150 million film. While I understand Cawley's opinion, it can't really be used a credible view of what we will actually see on screen, just because the form does not fit the nostalgia for the 1960s. What remains is just an opinion about the new ship not fitting an expectation of what has been seen in the past, not the actual modern quality of the design. If it looks ANYTHING like the great production and award winning FX of Enterprise, I would be happy.
RAMA
This is the Enterprise. It's not the original model,and more detail is added (and more polish applied to that which is there). And I think this, exactly as seen here, would illicit GASPS out of a sizeable portion of the audience the first time they saw it in ultra-fine resolution projected from 70mm stock on a big screen.Rat Boy said:
RAMA said:
General_Custer said:
Cawley just posted and I agree with him. The Enterprise design from Jeffreys is Timeless
Yes, but only in the context of reruns. It is not, and CANNOT be used in a contemporary $150 million film. While I understand Cawley's opinion, it can't really be used a credible view of what we will actually see on screen, just because the form does not fit the nostalgia for the 1960s. What remains is just an opinion about the new ship not fitting an expectation of what has been seen in the past, not the actual modern quality of the design. If it looks ANYTHING like the great production and award winning FX of Enterprise, I would be happy.
RAMA
Hate to say it, but you're kind of wrong there. The basic design of the Enterprise can still work, though you obviously can't just use the original 12 foot model on the big screen and get away with it. What I was kind of hoping for was a bit of added detail, something that pops out at you; a more textured hull, detail inside the windows, airlocks, docking ports, phaser banks and torpedo launchers. Heck, even make the hull perlescent like it was in TMP. But to design a completely new Enterprise worries me. Maybe I'll end up liking it when I see it, but I have to go with James on this one; don't completely discard what was there because you can.
Rat Boy said:
But to design a completely new Enterprise worries me. Maybe I'll end up liking it when I see it, but I have to go with James on this one; don't completely discard what was there because you can.
Cary L. Brown said:
So, aside from saying "it's from the 1960s" (which is true but totally meaningless), I'd love to hear a logical, reasoned argument for what SPECIFICS of this design are "bad."
Cary L. Brown said:
The fact that you seem to think that humanity has somehow "changed" between the 1960s and today, and that we're somehow "better" today than we were then, tells me that you're a kid. No one who's lived more than a couple of decades holds that sort of naive perspective.
CGI doesn't mean "more detailed." Typically far from it.StCoop said:
Cary L. Brown said:
So, aside from saying "it's from the 1960s" (which is true but totally meaningless), I'd love to hear a logical, reasoned argument for what SPECIFICS of this design are "bad."
It's too bland and featureless. Thirty years of far more detailed models and CGI have given the audience expectations that reach beyond something that looks like it should be hanging from a pices of fishing wire.
Corran Horn said:
'all I feel comfortable sharing'? How pretentious. Either spill it all or don't say anything.
What an attention grab.
I think you just lost half your audience with that last wisecrack.Matt said:
If you watch Trek Remastered, you'll see that the good old Connie' doesn't look too great pulling off extreme maneuvers. A brick with streamlined fins would look even better.
JBElliott said:
Franklin said:
And after all, the STMP refit turned out to be more beautiful than the original.![]()
Not hardly. TOS Entperise is the nicest looking of the lot by a wide margin.
CGI doesn't mean "more detailed." Typically far from it.
The "kitbashing" approach to modeling, first seriously used in Star Wars, is now passe. Look at more recent stuff and you'll see a shift away from building a model out of plywood and then layering tons of small model kit parts onto it.
You say "bland" but that's not a technical critique. And very few people really agree with you that "not covered with meaningless bits of junk" equals bland, I think. You're stating an opinion, and yeah, that's fine. But opinion is not the same as a reasoned critique. Remember that prior o the Enterprise, most models of spaceships were covered with all variety of "Greeblies." So by this argument, the "Rocky Jones, Space Ranger" and the original serialied "Flash Gordon" spaceships were actually more modern.
I think that a smoother appearance makes more sense. It's more REASONABLE as a design style. You won't find real spacecraft, or real aircraft, or real seacraft, or real AUTOMOBILES for that matter, that are considered "more advanced" for having lots of bits of junk stuck all over their outsides.
the dirty ship look predates star wars, refer to the artwork of Chris Foss and others of that time period. I think the point of the "greebles" or whatever is not to render anything more believable per se but to make it more visually interesting for the audience.In fact, looking at motorcycles, the ones that are considered the most "cool" and most "advanced" tend to be the ones where the mechanical bits show the least.
So it's really a matter of what you EXPECT, based upon having grown up post-Star Wars. Right?
and there it is. I suppose the two sides of this debate will never see eye-to-eye because it is just a matter of visual preference.Oh, and the ship I just put up doesn't look to ME as though it's hanging from fishing wire. The "over-greeblied" stuff from Star Wars, on the other hand, does.
Outpost4 said:
It would be sort of like seeing a defensive tackle in a tutu.
They could say the movie revolves around keeping the Dodgers from moving to Los Angeles, and folks would say, "As long as they didn't fuck with the Enterprise."
This movie may sink or swim on how that ship looks. Seriously (I think).
Outpost4 said:
^ No, you're right. The Enterprise is at least as important as any organic character. Nobody knew this better than Roddenberry. Witness the spacedock fly around in TMP.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.