Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
The image of 1701 facing off against the Borg gave me the creeps. Well done.
The image of 1701 facing off against the Borg gave me the creeps. Well done.
Never seen TOS scenes, but would've been nice...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Take a look at any of the interior machinery shown on TOS and you'll see that in most cases it all looks like gutted out transister radio parts and big clunky tape recorders. THAT was the conceptual thinking of the time. FourMadMen's approach is nothing more than applying modern technological aesthetics to what is essentially a very cheap model. Don't misunderstand me: what he created is actually extremely cool and I'm really just floored by his rendering. But this is where our views about all of this split. What he is showing looks awesome, but the viewer never gets to see that. The point of building a set model is to convince the viewer that the ship can actually fly. The TOS shuttle isn't convincing to most people, because they first have to believe that a ship that looks like that probably has the inner machinery to match the cgi graphic you posted. But it doesn't, unless you have spend a long time studying trek technical manuals or the designs of creative fans like FourMadMen.
The 'contextual enhancements' you posted are also somewhat interesting to look at, although to be honest I don't see any point to it. There are no real improvements in those images, just more of the same outdated-looking hardware. There are so few changes to the images that I'm not even sure what has been changed or added.
I am confident that Paramount WILL eventually get around to a TOS special edition someday, assuming Star Trek is even a worthwhile investment in the next few years. If it happens, I would guess they would take a couple of the best episodes and expand upon them for a theatrical release, which means they will do far more than add a couple of extra gadgets on the enterprise corridor wall. In fact, my kind of revisions are probably very minor compared to what they may be willing to do. If we are lucky, they will have people involved who have the kind of respect for TOS that you have, to counter-balance those like me who, while having great respect for the visuals of TOS, would probably end up wanting to cut out the entire background and start from scratch.
Take a look at any of the interior machinery shown on TOS and you'll see that in most cases it all looks like gutted out transister radio parts and big clunky tape recorders. THAT was the conceptual thinking of the time. FourMadMen's approach is nothing more than applying modern technological aesthetics to what is essentially a very cheap model. Don't misunderstand me: what he created is actually extremely cool and I'm really just floored by his rendering. But this is where our views about all of this split. What he is showing looks awesome, but the viewer never gets to see that. The point of building a set model is to convince the viewer that the ship can actually fly. The TOS shuttle isn't convincing to most people, because they first have to believe that a ship that looks like that probably has the inner machinery to match the cgi graphic you posted. But it doesn't, unless you have spend a long time studying trek technical manuals or the designs of creative fans like FourMadMen.
The 'contextual enhancements' you posted are also somewhat interesting to look at, although to be honest I don't see any point to it. There are no real improvements in those images, just more of the same outdated-looking hardware. There are so few changes to the images that I'm not even sure what has been changed or added.
I am confident that Paramount WILL eventually get around to a TOS special edition someday, assuming Star Trek is even a worthwhile investment in the next few years. If it happens, I would guess they would take a couple of the best episodes and expand upon them for a theatrical release, which means they will do far more than add a couple of extra gadgets on the enterprise corridor wall. In fact, my kind of revisions are probably very minor compared to what they may be willing to do. If we are lucky, they will have people involved who have the kind of respect for TOS that you have, to counter-balance those like me who, while having great respect for the visuals of TOS, would probably end up wanting to cut out the entire background and start from scratch.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
^^
I've been following FMM's and Phil Broad's projects almost from their beginnings and there is nothing revisionist whatsoever about their work. You will note that they haven't added all sorts of extraneous robot debris and teltale winkies that were never intended to be there in the first place. They are using modern tools (as I am with Photoshop) to enhance what Star Trek already had. TOS rarely showed the inner workings of things on the show, which in a sense maintained the sense of intrigue regarding how they worked. And there is no question that in twenty or so years time the stuff on contemporary Trek is likely going to look hokey as well.
Why can you not distinguish between intent and what tools and materials are at hand? I used to fashion spaceships out of pieces of cardboard and blocks of word and fly to the ends of the universe in my imagination when I was younger. I can sketch out far-future starships on a scrap of paper and in my mind they are all surely more than the simple materials I have at hand. But it seems some folks cannot make that abstract conceptual leap--they have to have everything laid out for them in excrutiating "blinky" detail or theysimply cannot understand.
Would it ruin your sense of disbelief to know that the bulkheads and consoles on contemporary Trek are made of flimsy and rather cheesy looking plastic? I've seen some of the actual sets on display at an exhibit some years ago. I've also seen some recreations of the TOS sets and props. What I found hugely fascinating is how the props and set replicas of TOS looked far more impressive in person that the same things from current Trek. The TOS phasers look like real damned weapons while the TNG "dustbuster" phasers look like Playmates toys.
Man, we know a viewscreen may have been a cardboard photograph, but we also understand that that was not what it was supposed to be and we understand what was intended. We are able to make that conceptual leap in imagination. We know that if they had had the time and money all the viewscreens ever seen on the show would have looked and behaved more like the main viewscreen on the ship's bridge. And it must be said the the idea of flatscreens and some of the forms they took on the show were easily thirty years ahead of some of which is only recently coming to market for you to buy and use at home. I cannot think of anything on contemporary Trek that can make such claims.
This is the essential distinction that you seem unable to grasp: the conceptual intent beyond the materials at hand to suggest an idea.
^^
I've been following FMM's and Phil Broad's projects almost from their beginnings and there is nothing revisionist whatsoever about their work. You will note that they haven't added all sorts of extraneous robot debris and teltale winkies that were never intended to be there in the first place. They are using modern tools (as I am with Photoshop) to enhance what Star Trek already had. TOS rarely showed the inner workings of things on the show, which in a sense maintained the sense of intrigue regarding how they worked. And there is no question that in twenty or so years time the stuff on contemporary Trek is likely going to look hokey as well.
Why can you not distinguish between intent and what tools and materials are at hand? I used to fashion spaceships out of pieces of cardboard and blocks of word and fly to the ends of the universe in my imagination when I was younger. I can sketch out far-future starships on a scrap of paper and in my mind they are all surely more than the simple materials I have at hand. But it seems some folks cannot make that abstract conceptual leap--they have to have everything laid out for them in excrutiating "blinky" detail or theysimply cannot understand.
Would it ruin your sense of disbelief to know that the bulkheads and consoles on contemporary Trek are made of flimsy and rather cheesy looking plastic? I've seen some of the actual sets on display at an exhibit some years ago. I've also seen some recreations of the TOS sets and props. What I found hugely fascinating is how the props and set replicas of TOS looked far more impressive in person that the same things from current Trek. The TOS phasers look like real damned weapons while the TNG "dustbuster" phasers look like Playmates toys.
Man, we know a viewscreen may have been a cardboard photograph, but we also understand that that was not what it was supposed to be and we understand what was intended. We are able to make that conceptual leap in imagination. We know that if they had had the time and money all the viewscreens ever seen on the show would have looked and behaved more like the main viewscreen on the ship's bridge. And it must be said the the idea of flatscreens and some of the forms they took on the show were easily thirty years ahead of some of which is only recently coming to market for you to buy and use at home. I cannot think of anything on contemporary Trek that can make such claims.
This is the essential distinction that you seem unable to grasp: the conceptual intent beyond the materials at hand to suggest an idea.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Sometimes. But sometimes, you see Spock messing with the guts of his library computer and the "transistors" are strangely shaped blocks -- very weird and evocative of some kind of strange, future technology. When there was time to do it right they did. Their intent is pretty well known from the times they did do it right. Sometimes, for either time reasons or because they wanted to be very literal to communicate a point, they used contemporary technology as the inner workings of their equipment.
The modern viewer is capable of handling the weird stuff and still seeing the intent, so I am with those that would look to what the creators of TOS would have liked to have done, and use that as a launching point for enhancing the look of that period. Even there some of the ideas are dated, so they would require a deft hand to integrate them into both the TOS look and feel, and what says "far future" to the modern viewer. But not too much. The look of that show is more iconic than the look of Shatner and Nimoy. That was lost on the makers of the TOS movies -- they saw it all as background. Not so -- that "background" spoke volumes about the world of these people, their tastes, likes and dislikes, what they thought as beautiful and functional, in short what filled their eyes and ears and made them who they were. Not mere window dressing by a long shot.
Sometimes. But sometimes, you see Spock messing with the guts of his library computer and the "transistors" are strangely shaped blocks -- very weird and evocative of some kind of strange, future technology. When there was time to do it right they did. Their intent is pretty well known from the times they did do it right. Sometimes, for either time reasons or because they wanted to be very literal to communicate a point, they used contemporary technology as the inner workings of their equipment.
The modern viewer is capable of handling the weird stuff and still seeing the intent, so I am with those that would look to what the creators of TOS would have liked to have done, and use that as a launching point for enhancing the look of that period. Even there some of the ideas are dated, so they would require a deft hand to integrate them into both the TOS look and feel, and what says "far future" to the modern viewer. But not too much. The look of that show is more iconic than the look of Shatner and Nimoy. That was lost on the makers of the TOS movies -- they saw it all as background. Not so -- that "background" spoke volumes about the world of these people, their tastes, likes and dislikes, what they thought as beautiful and functional, in short what filled their eyes and ears and made them who they were. Not mere window dressing by a long shot.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Couldnt of said it better.
In reality the bulkheads may be layerd plywood or sheet metal, but imagination would dictate that within those bulkheads, other than support beams were conduits, jefferies tubes, air ducts, emergency equipment storage etc etc.
Thats the effect the SFX guys set out for, people to use their imagination rather than like said, have it laid out for the lazyness in all of us.
On a different note, didnt Roddenberry once say that the circuitry on Trek was of an organic type hybrid, with quick efficient calcualtions and functions. I think it was an interview or a book i read. Could be wrong mind you.
That is exactly my views on the Trek production values in the early days.Posted by Warped9:
^^
I've been following FMM's and Phil Broad's projects almost from their beginnings and there is nothing revisionist whatsoever about their work. You will note that they haven't added all sorts of extraneous robot debris and teltale winkies that were never intended to be there in the first place. They are using modern tools (as I am with Photoshop) to enhance what Star Trek already had. TOS rarely showed the inner workings of things on the show, which in a sense maintained the sense of intrigue regarding how they worked. And there is no question that in twenty or so years time the stuff on contemporary Trek is likely going to look hokey as well.
Why can you not distinguish between intent and what tools and materials are at hand? I used to fashion spaceships out of pieces of cardboard and blocks of word and fly to the ends of the universe in my imagination when I was younger. I can sketch out far-future starships on a scrap of paper and in my mind they are all surely more than the simple materials I have at hand. But it seems some folks cannot make that abstract conceptual leap--they have to have everything laid out for them in excrutiating "blinky" detail or theysimply cannot understand.
Would it ruin your sense of disbelief to know that the bulkheads and consoles on contemporary Trek are made of flimsy and rather cheesy looking plastic? I've seen some of the actual sets on display at an exhibit some years ago. I've also seen some recreations of the TOS sets and props. What I found hugely fascinating is how the props and set replicas of TOS looked far more impressive in person that the same things from current Trek. The TOS phasers look like real damned weapons while the TNG "dustbuster" phasers look like Playmates toys.
Man, we know a viewscreen may have been a cardboard photograph, but we also understand that that was not what it was supposed to be and we understand what was intended. We are able to make that conceptual leap in imagination. We know that if they had had the time and money all the viewscreens ever seen on the show would have looked and behaved more like the main viewscreen on the ship's bridge. And it must be said the the idea of flatscreens and some of the forms they took on the show were easily thirty years ahead of some of which is only recently coming to market for you to buy and use at home. I cannot think of anything on contemporary Trek that can make such claims.
This is the essential distinction that you seem unable to grasp: the conceptual intent beyond the materials at hand to suggest an idea.
Couldnt of said it better.
In reality the bulkheads may be layerd plywood or sheet metal, but imagination would dictate that within those bulkheads, other than support beams were conduits, jefferies tubes, air ducts, emergency equipment storage etc etc.
Thats the effect the SFX guys set out for, people to use their imagination rather than like said, have it laid out for the lazyness in all of us.
On a different note, didnt Roddenberry once say that the circuitry on Trek was of an organic type hybrid, with quick efficient calcualtions and functions. I think it was an interview or a book i read. Could be wrong mind you.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
^ More importantly TV-shows were still consittered extentions of Stage plays in that era. And the sets were there to suggest and not to tell.
^ More importantly TV-shows were still consittered extentions of Stage plays in that era. And the sets were there to suggest and not to tell.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Yeah, thats exactly what i meant, but couldnt convey.
Cheers.
And that is all i had to have typed.
Yeah, thats exactly what i meant, but couldnt convey.
Cheers.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
You may not have realized this, but I'm going to take that as a compliment even if you didn't intend that way. If I was able to make my enhancements seamless then I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. But if one really looks at what I've done I've attempted to add visual texture and density by building on what was already there yet without marring what was already there. The distinction between our approaches seems to come down to our differing views of what "improved" means. My approach equates "improved" with simply enhancing and cleaning up the original work. Your "improvement" equates with rewriting and shunning what is already there because it doesn't suit you aesthetically and thus you cannot grasp the intent.
The differences may also lay in individual mindset. I essentially agree with the kind of future aesthetc presented on TOS, that of being clean and streamlined in form and substance--clean and sleek equals sophisticated and advanced. The post Star Wars mindset is reflected in the aesthetic that the future should look more cluttered and extraneously detailed to look credible. That is why I've grown increasingly disappointed with the "lool" Trek has taken on since TWoK onward--it has become cluttered and industrial like as opposed to sleek and streamlined as evidenced in TOS and TMP.
You know it parallels the idea of enhancements in the original Star Wars trilogy and ST-TMP. In many cases one has to compare the new with the old side-by-side to see what was actually changed--that is the result of seamless enhancement. Otherwise you're sometimes wondering what was changed. It is also a testament to the original work that it accomplished what it was intended to do--that it triggered your imagination to "fill in the blanks" where something was actually missing or lacking.
You may not have realized this, but I'm going to take that as a compliment even if you didn't intend that way. If I was able to make my enhancements seamless then I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. But if one really looks at what I've done I've attempted to add visual texture and density by building on what was already there yet without marring what was already there. The distinction between our approaches seems to come down to our differing views of what "improved" means. My approach equates "improved" with simply enhancing and cleaning up the original work. Your "improvement" equates with rewriting and shunning what is already there because it doesn't suit you aesthetically and thus you cannot grasp the intent.
The differences may also lay in individual mindset. I essentially agree with the kind of future aesthetc presented on TOS, that of being clean and streamlined in form and substance--clean and sleek equals sophisticated and advanced. The post Star Wars mindset is reflected in the aesthetic that the future should look more cluttered and extraneously detailed to look credible. That is why I've grown increasingly disappointed with the "lool" Trek has taken on since TWoK onward--it has become cluttered and industrial like as opposed to sleek and streamlined as evidenced in TOS and TMP.
You know it parallels the idea of enhancements in the original Star Wars trilogy and ST-TMP. In many cases one has to compare the new with the old side-by-side to see what was actually changed--that is the result of seamless enhancement. Otherwise you're sometimes wondering what was changed. It is also a testament to the original work that it accomplished what it was intended to do--that it triggered your imagination to "fill in the blanks" where something was actually missing or lacking.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
^ And the real point is, if you are going to thoroughly change the look of Star Trek just to please a few viewers who might think the look "dated", then why not do something entirely original instead? Make a new space opera that looks the way the creator thinks people today would want to see it done.
But of course that won't be done, will it? The "Star Trek" label is too valuable to ignore. So instead of respecting what made it valuable in the first place -- great design and writing -- ignore that and make something new and just use the name. What dreadful superficiality.
I think Warped has it right. The only problem with the "look" of TOS is what is created by the improved resolutions of our era. They make it obvious that the great designs were executed with cheap materials. They also make the sparseness of detail a bit more than a statement on futuristic simplicity, and edge toward blandness. The answer is to remake the sets and ships using better building materials and adding detail and texture. That way your plasma screen TV won't reveal the fact you're looking at a stage set.
^ And the real point is, if you are going to thoroughly change the look of Star Trek just to please a few viewers who might think the look "dated", then why not do something entirely original instead? Make a new space opera that looks the way the creator thinks people today would want to see it done.
But of course that won't be done, will it? The "Star Trek" label is too valuable to ignore. So instead of respecting what made it valuable in the first place -- great design and writing -- ignore that and make something new and just use the name. What dreadful superficiality.
I think Warped has it right. The only problem with the "look" of TOS is what is created by the improved resolutions of our era. They make it obvious that the great designs were executed with cheap materials. They also make the sparseness of detail a bit more than a statement on futuristic simplicity, and edge toward blandness. The answer is to remake the sets and ships using better building materials and adding detail and texture. That way your plasma screen TV won't reveal the fact you're looking at a stage set.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Famous comic book writer/artist John Byrne (best known for his work on the X-Men in the late '70s and the Superman revamp in the mid-'80s) has often said that he would love to tell a story about a massive technological collapse befalling the galaxy inbetween TOS and TMP. That, he feels, is the only way to explain the "busier" look of the movies onward.
The bottom line: TOS was what it was. Who are we to say "Gene would've done this, if only..."? Perhaps he might have (he went on record as saying he wished the Klingons had ridges from the very start), but the fact of the matter is, he *didn't*, and it is not for us to decide how to "improve" upon a classic- especially if those improvements are made solely to pander to a modern audience.
Famous comic book writer/artist John Byrne (best known for his work on the X-Men in the late '70s and the Superman revamp in the mid-'80s) has often said that he would love to tell a story about a massive technological collapse befalling the galaxy inbetween TOS and TMP. That, he feels, is the only way to explain the "busier" look of the movies onward.
The bottom line: TOS was what it was. Who are we to say "Gene would've done this, if only..."? Perhaps he might have (he went on record as saying he wished the Klingons had ridges from the very start), but the fact of the matter is, he *didn't*, and it is not for us to decide how to "improve" upon a classic- especially if those improvements are made solely to pander to a modern audience.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
One has to only read anecdotes and memos from those involved in TOS' production to know there are things they'd like to have done but simply couldn't afford to and/or didn't have time. The Klingons' appearance is a case in point and in many respects I think TMP was a way of doing some things differently than what was done before. And yet not all of TMP's solutions were for the better--the more claustraphobic corridors were rather inconsistent with the idea of providing a spacious environment for a crew embarked upon extended deepspace voyages. Similarly the beige and blue/grey uniforms would seem rather bland having to look upon day after day (heck some folks cannot stand looking at them for only the duration of a two hour movie
)
One has to only read anecdotes and memos from those involved in TOS' production to know there are things they'd like to have done but simply couldn't afford to and/or didn't have time. The Klingons' appearance is a case in point and in many respects I think TMP was a way of doing some things differently than what was done before. And yet not all of TMP's solutions were for the better--the more claustraphobic corridors were rather inconsistent with the idea of providing a spacious environment for a crew embarked upon extended deepspace voyages. Similarly the beige and blue/grey uniforms would seem rather bland having to look upon day after day (heck some folks cannot stand looking at them for only the duration of a two hour movie
)TOS movie what if...
What if the uniforms had been slightly different in the films?
What if Nick Meyer went for French instead of British influences for example:
Or what if the old department colours were kept?
What if the uniforms had been slightly different in the films?
What if Nick Meyer went for French instead of British influences for example:
Or what if the old department colours were kept?
Re: TOS movie what if...
Reno, I must say first that I never cared for the TWOK-TUC uniforms because they seemed too militaristic.
Pic 1 - But if you have to be militaristic, I guess the British tradition is better than the French with the exception of the Napoleonic Age. However, I believe that the blue you chose was that of the Sun King's reign.
Pic 2 - I might could have handled that in the movie. Especially with everyone in black turtleneck. And we all know that black makes one look thinner on camera...Shatner and Doohan might have needed some help there.
Reno, I must say first that I never cared for the TWOK-TUC uniforms because they seemed too militaristic.
Pic 1 - But if you have to be militaristic, I guess the British tradition is better than the French
with the exception of the Napoleonic Age. However, I believe that the blue you chose was that of the Sun King's reign.Pic 2 - I might could have handled that in the movie. Especially with everyone in black turtleneck. And we all know that black makes one look thinner on camera...Shatner and Doohan might have needed some help there.
Re: TOS movie what if...
Yeah, in pic one I actually wanted the Napoleonic blue but couldn't seem to get it in photoshop.
Posted by Kagan:
Reno, I must say first that I never cared for the TWOK-TUC uniforms because they seemed too militaristic.
Pic 1 - But if you have to be militaristic, I guess the British tradition is better than the French
Pic 2 - I might could have handled that in the movie. Especially with everyone in black turtleneck. And we all know that black makes one look thinner on camera...Shatner and Doohan might have needed some help there.
Yeah, in pic one I actually wanted the Napoleonic blue but couldn't seem to get it in photoshop.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Here are a couple more before-and-after shots. In each case I've tried adding something to convey more of what is in the scene. They're both from "The Corbomite Maneuver" and in each I've tried to make the colours a little less intense and richer as well as making the scene a little warmer and more shadowed overall. In both cases I've tried to overcome the sense of austere and sterile like atmosphere with more visual density and warmth.
The additions to Kirk's quarters are to suggest his passion for exploring "strange new worlds" as well as his romanticized thirst for adventure...
The additions to the Bridge reinforce the events transpiring. Over Uhura's station we can see the sector of space she has been monitoring as well as the alien ship Fesarius from which they are receiving signals from. These images would have a more video like look and they could be seen alternating to suggest other things happening in connection to Uhura's station. Over the Engineering station Scotty is able to monitor all ship's systems and status. Different parts of the overhead schematic could alternately be enhanced or highlighted to suggest the status of different sections and systems..
Here are a couple more before-and-after shots. In each case I've tried adding something to convey more of what is in the scene. They're both from "The Corbomite Maneuver" and in each I've tried to make the colours a little less intense and richer as well as making the scene a little warmer and more shadowed overall. In both cases I've tried to overcome the sense of austere and sterile like atmosphere with more visual density and warmth.
The additions to Kirk's quarters are to suggest his passion for exploring "strange new worlds" as well as his romanticized thirst for adventure...
The additions to the Bridge reinforce the events transpiring. Over Uhura's station we can see the sector of space she has been monitoring as well as the alien ship Fesarius from which they are receiving signals from. These images would have a more video like look and they could be seen alternating to suggest other things happening in connection to Uhura's station. Over the Engineering station Scotty is able to monitor all ship's systems and status. Different parts of the overhead schematic could alternately be enhanced or highlighted to suggest the status of different sections and systems..
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Saw these on previous pages. I enjoy your work, especially your hypothetical Pike era. Keep'em coming.
Warped9, in the second photo, did you darken the photo to make the shadows stronger...and more realistic ship's lighting?Posted by Warped9:
Saw these on previous pages. I enjoy your work, especially your hypothetical Pike era. Keep'em coming.
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
Funny this post should appear, I was just tweaking the only bridge shot I had available to do the same thing. I find the red too overpowering and unnecessary.
I was trying to get the red to match more the hsade used in the TOS movies.
I would also be inclined to make the helm console all black as well.
before
after
Posted by Kagan:
Warped9, in the second photo, did you darken the photo to make the shadows stronger...and more realistic ship's lighting?Posted by Warped9:
Saw these on previous pages. I enjoy your work, especially your hypothetical Pike era. Keep'em coming.
Funny this post should appear, I was just tweaking the only bridge shot I had available to do the same thing. I find the red too overpowering and unnecessary.
I was trying to get the red to match more the hsade used in the TOS movies.
I would also be inclined to make the helm console all black as well.
before
after
Re: Never seen TOS scenes...
I always felt that if the handrails were to be bright red they had to be red for a reason. What if they were actually supposed to flash during red alerts?
I always felt that if the handrails were to be bright red they had to be red for a reason. What if they were actually supposed to flash during red alerts?
- Status
Similar threads
