new enterprise

[3D Master]

Kegek Kringle said:

Cary L. Brown said:
I don't mean to specifically target YOU here, but I've heard soooo many people make those same comments in these discussions, and each time it's obvious that the person saying it has ZERO understanding of the underlying science concepts.

I think this boils down to aesthetics, not science. The TOS Enterprise looks like a product of the sixties, and the interior colour scheme in particular. Why's it got the registration NCC-1701, for example? The answer: It's easy to read at a distance on those TV screens.

Aesthetically, the new design will have a 2000s feel to it. I'm not sure what that means, granted, but that's probably the main idea.

Not to me. To me the NCC-1701 color-scheme looks like the way it would be done in real life, with a few small alterations. There are people in northern hemispheres who can't handle the lack of color and green and sunlight, and get depressed, so they have to put themselves in front of bright lights for long times to compensate. A ship in space, years away, little sunlight, would get the same treatment. The insides would be bright, and filled with color to stimulate human eyes and brains. The only thing really lacking in the original NCC-1701 color scheme is GREEN. Put a chunk more green in there, preferably in such a matter as to mimic plants, and an arboretum in the ship somewhere for contact with an Earthly environ.

A good set designer, indeed, would be able to produce a set that if you see only a flicker of it, and then a flicker of the old set, you wouldn't be able to see a difference. But when you let them run for longer you're suddenly going to notice that the new set is much more functional, with displays that work, buttons and switches that will seem to have a function instead of a large unspecified number of switches that don't seem to do anything when pushed or switched, and it would look better than movies bridges and TNG beyond bridges.

And that is what you need. It would look like the same bridge, but functional. Not "more modern" which is bull, it's the 23rd century, it's by definition "more modern", what you need, is FUNCTIONAL. That all of it actually works, and displays don't just show meaningless blinking squares, circles and triangles, but something that has meaning.

It's all about the skill of the designer.

 

[Kegek]

3D Master said:
It would look like the same bridge, but functional. Not "more modern" which is bull, it's the 23rd century,

It's set in the twenty-third century. It was designed in the 1960s. 'More modern' ultimately means a more modern view of the future.

An interesting argument about colourisation, nevertheless. I like the idea of a ship being decorated brightly in an effort to combat the dreary loneliness of space.

But TOS's reason for bright colours was to sell colour TVs (compare the colour on the bridge in the series to the more subdued tones of "The Cage"). I am sure Abrams will work on similar aesthetic principles - whatever he thinks looks good on the big screen today. What kind of colour contrasts that may entail remains to be seen.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Does any one remember being horrified about the changes made to the Jupiter II in the Lost in Space Movie?

 

[Psion]

Nope. I liked the changes to the Jupiter II. I didn't like the new Robot, though I was glad to hear Dick Tufeld's voice.

 

[aridas sofia]

3D Master said:

Not to me. To me the NCC-1701 color-scheme looks like the way it would be done in real life, with a few small alterations. There are people in northern hemispheres who can't handle the lack of color and green and sunlight, and get depressed, so they have to put themselves in front of bright lights for long times to compensate. A ship in space, years away, little sunlight, would get the same treatment. The insides would be bright, and filled with color to stimulate human eyes and brains. The only thing really lacking in the original NCC-1701 color scheme is GREEN. Put a chunk more green in there, preferably in such a matter as to mimic plants, and an arboretum in the ship somewhere for contact with an Earthly environ.

A good set designer, indeed, would be able to produce a set that if you see only a flicker of it, and then a flicker of the old set, you wouldn't be able to see a difference. But when you let them run for longer you're suddenly going to notice that the new set is much more functional, with displays that work, buttons and switches that will seem to have a function instead of a large unspecified number of switches that don't seem to do anything when pushed or switched, and it would look better than movies bridges and TNG beyond bridges.

And that is what you need. It would look like the same bridge, but functional. Not "more modern" which is bull, it's the 23rd century, it's by definition "more modern", what you need, is FUNCTIONAL. That all of it actually works, and displays don't just show meaningless blinking squares, circles and triangles, but something that has meaning.

It's all about the skill of the designer.

You hit it on the nose. :thumbsup:

 

[Cary L. Brown]

3D Master said:

Kegek Kringle said:

Cary L. Brown said:
I don't mean to specifically target YOU here, but I've heard soooo many people make those same comments in these discussions, and each time it's obvious that the person saying it has ZERO understanding of the underlying science concepts.

I think this boils down to aesthetics, not science. The TOS Enterprise looks like a product of the sixties, and the interior colour scheme in particular. Why's it got the registration NCC-1701, for example? The answer: It's easy to read at a distance on those TV screens.

Aesthetically, the new design will have a 2000s feel to it. I'm not sure what that means, granted, but that's probably the main idea.

Not to me. To me the NCC-1701 color-scheme looks like the way it would be done in real life, with a few small alterations. There are people in northern hemispheres who can't handle the lack of color and green and sunlight, and get depressed, so they have to put themselves in front of bright lights for long times to compensate. A ship in space, years away, little sunlight, would get the same treatment. The insides would be bright, and filled with color to stimulate human eyes and brains. The only thing really lacking in the original NCC-1701 color scheme is GREEN. Put a chunk more green in there, preferably in such a matter as to mimic plants, and an arboretum in the ship somewhere for contact with an Earthly environ.

A good set designer, indeed, would be able to produce a set that if you see only a flicker of it, and then a flicker of the old set, you wouldn't be able to see a difference. But when you let them run for longer you're suddenly going to notice that the new set is much more functional, with displays that work, buttons and switches that will seem to have a function instead of a large unspecified number of switches that don't seem to do anything when pushed or switched, and it would look better than movies bridges and TNG beyond bridges.

And that is what you need. It would look like the same bridge, but functional. Not "more modern" which is bull, it's the 23rd century, it's by definition "more modern", what you need, is FUNCTIONAL. That all of it actually works, and displays don't just show meaningless blinking squares, circles and triangles, but something that has meaning.

It's all about the skill of the designer.

Absolutely correct on all counts.

I've made that color argument multiple times... usually in regards to the claims that all the uniforms should be black and grey with only a few hints of piping. (Those are always made by people who grew up watching Blackman designs, with those goofy shoulder pads and so forth.) When I point out that the person in question, him or herself, wears colored clothing, they simply ignore it.

It's absolutely true... color is a PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED.

An interesting thing to look into, if anyone's interested, is the tendency for people who live in inner-city environments to buy cars that are brightly colored, and them compare that to the tendency for people who live in forested, nature-heavy areas to buy cars that are silver, grey, or other "technology-ish" colors.

People who live in the city need color more, because there's less color in their living environment as a rule. Even with signage and so forth, it's just not the same as seeing a forest, is it?

It's just human nature. And that, I believe, isn't likely to change significantly in the next couple of hundred years!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek Kringle said:

3D Master said:
It would look like the same bridge, but functional. Not "more modern" which is bull, it's the 23rd century,

It's set in the twenty-third century. It was designed in the 1960s. 'More modern' ultimately means a more modern view of the future.

This is true.

I liked the changes to the Jupiter II in the movie. Actually, I liked the movie - but come on, the TV series is not a classic. It's typical Irwin Allen crap.

 

[aridas sofia]

^Yeah... I really didn't understand the problems people had with that movie. It wasn't all that bad.

 

[gastrof]

Guy Gardener said:
Does any one remember being horrified about the changes made to the Jupiter II in the Lost in Space Movie?

Does anyone REMEMBER "the Lost in Space Movie"?

That example isn't really one of a relaunch that flew high.

More like an example of one that exploded before it even got off the ground.

Let's not let that happen to Trek. Please!

 

[gastrof]

aridas sofia said:
^Yeah... I really didn't understand the problems people had with that movie. It wasn't all that bad.

Actually, if you stop to think about it, the thing obviously had some serious production problems, and it seemed to last all the way up to and during the final editing.

For example, after the robot is attacked by the spiders and "left for dead", mention's made of the Robot being Will's friend, and yet prior to this the only connection between them was the Robot trying to kill Will and the rest of the family.

Some things were left out carelessly that affected the thing even making sense.

I still can't figure out to this day what was going on with the time bubble they went thru. They ended up in the future? So why could John still see his own Jupiter II take off into the sky and get destroyed?

Similar question regarding the presence of the other Earth ship they found, and the evidence it was also from the future.

Yes, I know the answer involves older Will's time machine, but exactly what IS the answer?

None of that made a lot of sense.

Also, why even mention the fact the space pod and the chariot were destroyed in the crash? Why not just not mention them, as if they didn't exist in this version? There was no rule that said they had to.

Too much of it came across as a rush job that nobody'd really given much thought to.

It's too bad. They could have had a winner. It's obvious a lot of hard work went into the thing. How they goofed up the way they did is beyond me.

 

[aridas sofia]

The original was so tawdry my expectations weren't very high. The film was "Lawrence of Arabia" by comparison. I was only disappointed that the grown Will wasn't played by Bill Mumy. And the whole spider-Doctor Smith thing was a bit much. But the ending was neat.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I watched parts of it again a few weeks ago, and it certainly is true that the CG in the movie is fairly unconvincing throughout. That said, it's very pretty CG and it supports the story just fine.

 

[Kegek]

It was okay. Lost in Space is one of those sci-fi movies you watch at the time, forget when the credits run, but had no real complaints.

 

[Redfern]

I thought Gary Oldman as Dr. Smith was great, a lot like the "early" Smith as played in the first few episodes by Harris (when he was still a genuine threat). Too bad Harris declined the role of Oldman's superior (the hologram). Because he declined, so did Bill Mumy who was close friends with the elder thesspian. Yes, I lamented a more "classic" Jupiter II. Sure, make the thing big (the thing was practically a d*mned TARDIS in the original series), but it would have been nice the retain the look of the "launch shell" shown in the first few minutes. I also missed the classical look to B9 (though I'm grateful Dick Tufeld reprised the voice), but I'm funny that way. I have a life sized replica in my lower den.

Sorry for the topic derailment.

Carry on.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Redfern said:
I thought Gary Oldman as Dr. Smith was great, a lot like the "early" Smith as played in the first few episodes by Harris (when he was still a genuine threat).

Oldman was great.

 

[Blip]

Kegek Kringle said:
I am sure Abrams will work on similar aesthetic principles - whatever he thinks looks good on the big screen today. What kind of colour contrasts that may entail remains to be seen.

You know, after watching MI:3 the other day I'm not so sure that allowing Abrams' sense of "aesthetics" to roam free is such a good idea...

 

[StarMan]

Kegek Kringle said:
It was okay. Lost in Space is one of those sci-fi movies you watch at the time, forget when the credits run, but had no real complaints.

Heh. Well said.

At least Matt LeBlanc moved on to better things (see: Joey).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Blip said:
You know, after watching MI:3 the other day I'm not so sure that allowing Abrams' sense of "aesthetics" to roam free is such a good idea...

I am. Good movie. :thumbsup:

 

[Kegek]

Blip said:
You know, after watching MI:3 the other day I'm not so sure that allowing Abrams' sense of "aesthetics" to roam free is such a good idea...

We'll see. If I consider the results aesthetically unappealling, you can be damned sure I'll complain. The reverse is also true. I don't know if Abrams is the man for the job of aesthetically rebooting the franchise, I just know there are aspects of rebooting I think can and should be done. Here's to hoping it goes well.

 

[Classic Fan]

gastrof said:

Starship Polaris said:
Must maintain purity, after all.

Quinto's Spock ears are obviously too small.

Your avatar and all copies of such photos must be destroyed.

Have you also noticed that Quinto's fingers are slightly longer than that of the real Spock?