Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice...

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

^ It's one of those bits that gets cut for more commercial time, but I'm about 99.5% certain that it's from the very beginning of Act III, during Kirk's supplemental log entry describing what happened.

 

[Intelligence]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

somehow I had to think of "Once Upon A Time In The West" now...

the ring planet is a nice addition!!

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Pretty self exclamatory here. I wonder if the first season of this new show will be any good.

 

[The Dark In Me]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Neat Stuff!

 

[Machiavelligz]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Here's my feeble attempt. I think I got these screencaps from Trek5.... Anyway, here is a scene from BOT, with Enterprise firing her rear phaser at the decloaked BOP.
http://homepage.mac.com/bryangoesling/Rearphaser.jpg

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

I would like to have seen actual stuff like this in Balance of Terror (instead of reusing the same "Phaser Fire" shot.

The BoP seems a bit small, or something, though.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

It's an interesting shot, but the ships would never have gotten that close to each other in the generally more believeable way TOS usually depicted space combat. Ships practically within sight of each other like WW1 biplanes or old sailing galleons is nonsense that started in TWoK.

 

[Classic Fan]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Looking neat-ass, Warped.

I love the Cestus III shot, i really do.

 

[Kirkunit]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Posted by Warped9:
It's an interesting shot, but the ships would never have gotten that close to each other in the generally more believeable way TOS usually depicted space combat. Ships practically within sight of each other like WW1 biplanes or old sailing galleons is nonsense that started in TWoK.

Whoops. Gotta take exception here. I believe the only reason space combat was depicted more believably, as you say, was because of the logistics of filming special effects. I'm sure it was much simpler, not to mention less expensive, to cut between stock footage of ships firing at each other than to composite multiple ships in the same scene.

Given a choice, I'm sure those involved would have had multiple ships in the same scene every chance they could. Think about "The Enterprise Incident," or "The Ultimate Computer." Really, wouldn't Starfleet be nuts to have 1/3rd of their fleet flying in such tight formation? But dramatically it looked great.

And don't pick on "The Wrath of Kahn." As I recall from 1982, one of the most "edge of your seat" moments from that film was when the Reliant nearly clipped the Enterprise as she skimmed over her following their first encounter.

Just my $.02.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

^^ Yes, I agree that given the opportunity they'd have shown things differently. But oddly the budgetary and resource limitations actually made them get this right by depicting it the way they did. And I did say they "generally" got it right, not usually or always got it right.

I don't want to derail this thread by getting into a debate about TWoK, a film which I accept as a decent popcorn thriller but one I also see as a deeply flawed effort as a Star Trek story on so many levels. I guess I'm just one of those who doesn't accept that "Wow, it looks so cool." is enough of a justification for doing something wrong. Just my opinion. I liked the movie well enough when it came out, but even then I had questions and some reservations. And suffice to say that in my view it has not aged well and my reservations have never been rationalized to my satisfaction.

Oops, looks like I'm beginning to debate the damned thing myself.

 

[Kirkunit]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

^^^ Agreed. Your thread, your rules. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[The Axeman]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Warped 9, nice work on the planet background for that shot, as you say it's a cheap and cheerful way of establishing beyond doubt that this is an alien world that just happens to look like a bit of waste ground a few miles away from El Lay. If it's good enough for SG-1 then it's probably good enough for TOS.

On a slightly different note, if you think TWOK was crap because it wasn't as scientifically accurate as it could be, I'm SO glad you had no say in the movie. A movie is first and foremost a visual spectacle, a character drama played out in vivid light and colour on a screen 60 feeet wide to entertain the public. If they made it to please technically minded hard-core fans then there would never have been anything after it. It would have sucked.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

^^ As in all things there is balance to be sought. Science fiction by it's very nature is bound to take liberties with reality, particularly where Hollywood is concerned. There is a fine line between suspension of disbelief and outright nonsense and in my view Bennett and Meyer leaped over that line rather than straddle it. I could go on and on in regards to why I think this film is so flawed and not just in terms of scientific credibility, but that would derail the thread. Besides which I get into this discussion often enough in other threads more suited to such.

 

[MGagen]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Posted by Warped9:
...where did MJ come up with that 947' figure? We know that drawings of the ship at around that time (as seen in TMoST0 were not accurate or consistent with the filming miniature (to be kind). We've also discovered that the early Phase II drawings are not very consistent with the TOS E. As was said elsewhere before, it is almost as if MJ couldn't redraw his own ship and just decided to fudge it(!).

This is a mischaracterization. The TMOST drawings are far closer to the actual model than previously thought. The differences may be attributable to when the drawing was made, since the model was revised between the building of the "3-footer" and the "11-footer." We must also keep in mind the purpose of the drawing. It was made for the Writers' Guide so they would have some idea of how the ship was going to look. If it turned out a little different later, why commit art department time to completely redrafting the drawing when the intended audience wouldn't really notice the subtle differences anyway.

Also, the thread mentioned has brought out definite similarities between the TOS design and MJ's original redesign for Phase II where it was previously thought there was no correlation. Evidence is on the side of MJ knowing very well how to draw his own ship.

Readers can check it out on this thread.

How big is the TOS Enterprise?

Posted by Captain Robert April:
^ Yeah, I've been following that discussion on Hobby Talk, and I am very sorely tempted to do some revising.
>SNIP<
Solving that bridge problem would be nice, though...

CRA,

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated some time back in one of the innumerable threads we shared on the subject, even enlarging the ship to 1080' doesn't get us enough room to rotate the bridge back to forward. Even at that size you only manage to shift the turbolift car half way out of the exterior tube. I too had hoped this would be the "magic bullet" to solve this problem, but alas, no...

Mark

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated some time back in one of the innumerable threads we shared on the subject, even enlarging the ship to 1080' doesn't get us enough room to rotate the bridge back to forward. Even at that size you only manage to shift the turbolift car half way out of the exterior tube. I too had hoped this would be the "magic bullet" to solve this problem, but alas, no...

Mark

I've already resigned myself to the realization that solving the bridge issue is going to have run along the same lines as the matter of matching up the shuttlecraft interior with the exterior, i.e., there's gonna be some stretching and shrinking involved, along with sinking the works down quite a bit (rationalized by taking the higher bridge from the pilots and sinking the whole works down...no, it's not a perfect solution, but it fills in a few gaps nicely).

 

[The Castellan]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Posted by Warped9:
^^ As in all things there is balance to be sought. Science fiction by it's very nature is bound to take liberties with reality, particularly where Hollywood is concerned. There is a fine line between suspension of disbelief and outright nonsense and in my view Bennett and Meyer leaped over that line rather than straddle it. I could go on and on in regards to why I think this film is so flawed and not just in terms of scientific credibility, but that would derail the thread. Besides which I get into this discussion often enough in other threads more suited to such.

Well, outta curiosity, how would you have made TWOK battle scenes? I wanna hear what you would have done

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

^^ Firstly, you are asking me how I would stage a scene or more in a story that I never would have chosen in the first place. Much of the flaw in TWoK stems directly from the gaping logic flaws we are expected to overlook and accept.

- that the Reliant did not know where it was and that Starfleet vessels would have had prior warning to stay away from the Ceti Alpha system or in the very least Ceti Alpha 5. None of this should have happened. What would have made more sense was that a rogue group perhaps, having nothing to do with Starfleet and the Federation, came across Khan and his people. Perhaps then Khan uses these folks to escape and then hijacks their vessel. One still runs into a problem though that could really only be overcome by having willing accomplices to some extent--that Khan and his group acknowleged being out of their depth with running the TOS Enterprise and yet they're able to operate an even more advanced starship fifteen years later? Maybe if Khan and his group and new accomplices went on a buccaneering spree and Starfleet is out to hunt him down? And why is it Starfleet would risk a damned training vessel with a crew of nothing but cadets to be dispatched to a potentially troubled area?. I doubt the U.S Navy would do such a thing and I seriously doubt Starfleet would either.
- when last seen in "Space Seed" Khan and his followers were apparently much the same average age, yet in the film he's surrounded by nothing but young adults. Unless these are children of his original followers it's all bullshit particularly since it's only been fifteen years since we've seen these people.
- It has been said before and I will say it once again here--the depiction of the Mutara Nebula is nonsense. Even back in the '80s and before it was well known that nebulae only look dense because of our distance from them. If you were ever actually in a nebula you might be very hardpressed to even know it except perhaps for the discoloration of stars. It sure as hell will not look like you're in a dense fog.
- the fact is Bennett and Meyer simply wanted to do a submarine analogy and bent everything out of shape to get that result rather than referring to the one source that would have spelled it out for them: "Balance Of Terror." For whatever its mistakes BoT is a far superior work of submarine combat analogy in space than TWoK.

But lets sidestep all of that and more by trying to answer your question. My approach would be more akin to what was later seen in TUC or even better TOS and then much later in early seasons of Babylon 5--by showing deployment of weaponry interspersed with quick cuts to the ships being hit seen from outside and inside. It's a matter of pacing and cutting the scenes and shots tightly and quickly to get a sustained sense of rapid action. Some years ago I read David Gerrold's Voyage Of The Starwolf which had some wonderful combat scenarios in it and he managed to convey a sense of danger and suspense and excitement--and this is the printed word for crying out loud without any of the advantages of the visual medium.

The problem is--and I mean no disrespect at all--is that most people have difficulty envisioning beyond what is within their immediate experience. Meaning: it was done such-and-such a way and how could it be done any better? Bennett and Meyer would have done far better if they'd used the analogy of modern naval combat or modern aerial combat as opposed to 18th century naval combat. A good example is the film The Hunt For Red October--great combat tension and action. But envisioning beyond immediate experience isn't just a problem for a viewer, but it can also constrain a film maker--not everyone can get their head around thinking in science fiction terms and really grasp what space combat might be like. Someone like David Weber perhaps would be someone handy to have near to consult--reading his space war books one sees he clearly understands it.

Many people IMO have the erroneous notion that if you do it more real than it likely won't be as exciting, to which I strongly disagree. Striving to make something more believeable can be exciting providing you also strive to depict it in an exciting manner.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Posted by Warped9:
Pretty self exclamatory here. I wonder if the first season of this new show will be any good. (Note: in the pic I tried to make the ship echo the lines of the original 33" filming miniature.)

When I did this I had the nebulous idea of what might have happened if "The Cage" had sold the show and regular series production had gone on from there. And then what if things had transpired in a roughly parallel way as they did?

- "The Cage" sells the series and Star Trek' first season actually happens in 1965-66 with Jeffrey Hunter and the rest of the cast.
- Citing creative and contractual differences Jeffrey Hunter leaves the show and NBC says changes are needed to bolster the show even though it will return for a second season for 1966-67. William Shatner replaces Jeffrey Hunter and pretty well the rest of the cast are changed save for Leonard Nimoy as Spock. The second season builds on a not bad first season and the show's look stays with that seen in "The Cage" and "WNMHGB." The backstory for the cast changes is that the second season picks up several years after the first and Kirk is replacing a now promoted Pike as ship's captain.
- GR and company build on the first two seasons. An increase in production budget allows them to refine sets and the filming miniature to reflect what we see in TOS' real three year production. The backstory for the change in look and the replacing of characters Mitchell, Kelso, Piper and Alden is that the ship is refit and now given a choice new assignment: a 5-year voyage of deepspace exploration. This is season year 1967-68.
- The series continues on a creative roll for the next two years. The Apollo lunar landing in summer 1969 brings the show added attention for the coming fifth season in 1969-70. But all is not rosy as NBC is becoming concerned with mounting production costs. The show is finding its demographic audience, but it's getting expensive to produce and the show has achieved a good five year run more than suitable for syndication.
- NBC decides to hang in for one more year, far longer than anyone had really expected back in 1965. Many of the stories we saw in TAS are produced for what will turn out to be Star Trek's last season in 1970-71.
- Over the ensuing years there is mounting interest to bring the series back. Finally Paramount gambles in 1979 with a major film project directed by Robert Wise. Following a successful release of ST-TMP Paramount surprises again with the announcement that Star Trek will return to television in the early years of the new decade of the l980s.

*Sigh* Ah, well. One can dream anyway...

 

[Classic Fan]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Posted by Warped9:

Posted by Warped9:
Pretty self exclamatory here. I wonder if the first season of this new show will be any good. (Note: in the pic I tried to make the ship echo the lines of the original 33" filming miniature.)

When I did this I had the nebulous idea of what might have happened if "The Cage" had sold the show and regular series production had gone on from there. And then what if things had transpired in a roughly parallel way as they did?

- "The Cage" sells the series and Star Trek' first season actually happens in 1965-66 with Jeffrey Hunter and the rest of the cast.
- Citing creative and contractual differences Jeffrey Hunter leaves the show and NBC says changes are needed to bolster the show even though it will return for a second season for 1966-67. William Shatner replaces Jeffrey Hunter and pretty well the rest of the cast are changed save for Leonard Nimoy as Spock. The second season builds on a not bad first season and the show's look stays with that seen in "The Cage" and "WNMHGB." The backstory for the cast changes is that the second season picks up several years after the first and Kirk is replacing a now promoted Pike as ship's captain.
- GR and company build on the first two seasons. An increase in production budget allows them to refine sets and the filming miniature to reflect what we see in TOS' real three year production. The backstory for the change in look and the replacing of characters Mitchell, Kelso, Piper and Alden is that the ship is refit and now given a choice new assignment: a 5-year voyage of deepspace exploration. This is season year 1967-68.
- The series continues on a creative roll for the next two years. The Apollo lunar landing in summer 1969 brings the show added attention for the coming fifth season in 1969-70. But all is not rosy as NBC is becoming concerned with mounting production costs. The show is finding its demographic audience, but it's getting expensive to produce and the show has achieved a good five year run more than suitable for syndication.
- NBC decides to hang in for one more year, far longer than anyone had really expected back in 1965. Many of the stories we saw in TAS are produced for what will turn out to be Star Trek's last season in 1970-71.
- Over the ensuing years there is mounting interest to bring the series back. Finally Paramount gambles in 1979 with a major film project directed by Robert Wise. Following a successful release of ST-TMP Paramount surprises again with the announcement that Star Trek will return to television in the early years of the new decade of the l980s.

*Sigh* Ah, well. One can dream anyway...

Nice one.

Thats got my overactive imagination going into over drive now.

Cheers.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice.

Hmm. Now following this line of thought of Star Trek's original run having gone differently, what if McCoy had been in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"? Actually I'd have liked that because I thought Dr. Piper was such a flat character even with what little he'd been given to do.