new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire (spoilers?)

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

How ILM came up with the new Enterprise for J.J. Abrams' Trek

So the design changes were implemented to make this Enterprise more of a child's toy (i.e. lots of moving parts).

Because no real machinery or equipment of any importance, now or in the future, includes or will include moving parts.

The naysayers are really having to stoop for new criticisms.

Jesus Christ, man, he had to stoop no further than the beginning of the article:

"When I was a kid—when I bought toys or when I built things—I always wanted stuff to move. And one thing that frustrated me about the original Enterprise was that nothing moves on it. It was just a very static thing."

 

[Mike Farley]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

I don't mind the nuENTERPRISE, but I am saddened by just how many things these guys got wrong, especially prefaced with the phrase "I don't know how familiar you are with the terminology of the Enterprise..." It's the PRIMARY hull, not the main hull. While technically they are warp engines, they are called nacelles. It's a deflector dish, not a collection plate--those two things would seems to perform opposite functions. And aztecing dates back to TMP not TNG.

These would be nitpicks if the guys weren't presenting themselves as experts.

 

[Praetor]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

In defense of ILM, even TOS wasn't always that specific when it came to terminology.

The terms 'matter/antimatter pods' and 'main section' come to mind...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

Doesn't anybody want to talk about the ACTUAL ARTICLE...?

This is the internet, of course we don't.

There isn't all that much article to discuss...

 

[cbspock]

ILM hated the TMP model. They repainted it for TWOK because the original paint scheme didn't work for their bluescreens. They hated working on the model, they said it had no good angles.


-Chris

 

[section9]

That's it.

I propose we hunt Lucas down like the dog that he is. This is his doing.

He knew that the Enterprise outshone all his ships from SW, even the Falcon. He told his goons to crap it up.

Lucas must pay!

Avast ye Redshirts! To the Batlefs!

 

[yakueb]

I found the article to be pretty much uninformative. A hot-rod sort of look? What exactly does that mean? Show us some pictures!

 

[DaveyNY]

Ya wanna know whats really sad about the Toy Idea this guy describes...


Having purchased the NuEnterprise toy just the other day, the first thing I noticed was the fact that...

NOTHING MOVES!!!!!
​

Even the lights just blink ON & OFF, no Rotating Innards to show for it!!!
​

 

[Sector 7]

...still waiting for the eventual Ryan Church/collection plate joke...

I saw the ship at our local North Carolina Wally-World and it was $29.97 (US).

 

[kitsune]

ILM hated the TMP model. They repainted it for TWOK because the original paint scheme didn't work for their bluescreens. They hated working on the model, they said it had no good angles.

I never noticed a difference between the TMP and TWOK Enterprises...

 

[DaveyNY]

They mostly re-worked the innards for easier lighting/handling and their paint job was too subtle to really be significantly noticeable on screen.

I'm sure somebody around here can give you the exact changes that ILM made if ya really want the complete details.

I know I've read several articles through the years about that subject.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

Because no real machinery or equipment of any importance, now or in the future, includes or will include moving parts.

The naysayers are really having to stoop for new criticisms.

Jesus Christ, man, he had to stoop no further than the beginning of the article:

"When I was a kid—when I bought toys or when I built things—I always wanted stuff to move. And one thing that frustrated me about the original Enterprise was that nothing moves on it. It was just a very static thing."

but the new toy is still a static model with no moving parts.

But then, I don't think ILM and their guys had anything to do with the toys Playmates made...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

Yeah, but the irony is magically delicious.

 

[btflash]

hey , maybe the saucer section will spin on its axis in warp! cool! just kidding.

 

[iguana_tonante]

How ILM came up with the new Enterprise for J.J. Abrams' Trek

So the design changes were implemented to make this Enterprise more of a child's toy (i.e. lots of moving parts).

Fascinating.

---------------

Which is obviously not what the articles says. "When I was a kid—when I bought toys or when I built things—I always wanted stuff to move. And one thing that frustrated me about the original Enterprise was that nothing moves on it. It was just a very static thing..."
Sounds like when he was a kid he liked toys with moving parts because they felt more real (stuff like moving gun batteries on naval battleship, or moving rotors on helicopters, for example), and designed the ship with that inspiration. I have my problems with the Abramsprise, but to claim that the ship was designed to look like a child's toy is just disingenuous.

 

[Franklin]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

I don't mind the nuENTERPRISE, but I am saddened by just how many things these guys got wrong, especially prefaced with the phrase "I don't know how familiar you are with the terminology of the Enterprise..." It's the PRIMARY hull, not the main hull. While technically they are warp engines, they are called nacelles. It's a deflector dish, not a collection plate--those two things would seems to perform opposite functions. And aztecing dates back to TMP not TNG.

These would be nitpicks if the guys weren't presenting themselves as experts.

The design has grown on me, but I still like the TMP model better.

My first thought after reading that short piece is that we may be lucky to have what we have from them. Those guys weren't talking like folks who would inspire confidence.

I've always wondered why Abrams would prefer a "hotrod" look over the "graceful power" the TOS and TMP ships conveyed, anyway. Is a Clydesdale a more beautiful horse than a thoroughbred? The look of pure brawn over sculpted power? I guess when part of your targeted audience is now commonly seeing ads for (and presumably buying) "male enhancement" drugs, that's the direction in which you go.

 

[Shikarnov]

Re: new Enterprise for TrekXI - ILM details scifiwire

How ILM came up with the new Enterprise for J.J. Abrams' Trek

So the design changes were implemented to make this Enterprise more of a child's toy (i.e. lots of moving parts).

Because no real machinery or equipment of any importance, now or in the future, includes or will include moving parts.

The naysayers are really having to stoop for new criticisms.

KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) always works best. Different functions/intensities for the same hardware could easily be handled with internal circuit switches, or with separate pieces of hardware entirely. Why include all kinds of extra mechanisms to move/change/swap various things, when other solutions are so much simpler - and probably less prone to failure?

The logic behind the original ship was that things that could be inside were inside, where they could be accessed easily for the purposes of maintenance and/or repairs. This ship's motivation for extra complexity is some guy's childhood wish for movement. (To say nothing of JJ's desire for a "hot-rod type of vehicle" )

How many moving parts are there on any kind of device? Generally, only essential mechanisms move. And when a moving part can be omitted, it usually is -- solid state hard drives are a perfect example of that. They're faster, less prone to failure, lighter, consume less power, etc.

 

[Dac]

ILM hated the TMP model. They repainted it for TWOK because the original paint scheme didn't work for their bluescreens. They hated working on the model, they said it had no good angles.


-Chris

No Good Angles? WTF where they smoking?

 

[scotthm]

I have my problems with the Abramsprise, but to claim that the ship was designed to look like a child's toy is just disingenuous.

No, I've seen enough pictures of it to know that it does, in fact, look like a toy. A not very good looking toy.

---------------

 

[kitsune]

I was initally enthusiastic about the JJ Enterprise, but after having some time to ponder it, I now think that the best feature of it is the way the ship's registry was placed on the underside of the secondary hull, beneath the deflector. It looks good there.

I don't like the nacelles, the outriggers, or the repositioning of the neck.