New Redesigned Starship Enterprise Revealed ?
- Thread starter ralph
- Start date
You think so? Really? When the E-E did her first flyby in "Nemesis", I was blown away at how wonderfully detailed it was. A few weeks later, I went and watched "First Contact" and was blown away at how "under-detailed" it seemed. Not that one is necessary better than the other, but the difference was just jarring and I preferred the more-detailed NEM version.
To each their own.
I think the Ent-E looks wonderful in both films! I loved the opening shot in FC, and I especially loved the opening shot in NEM. I liked most of the shots of the Ent in NEM, except for the closing ones of it in spacedock, which I find very underwhelming. I think it's a beautiful design, though, but that's just my opinion.
That first flyby, particularly the rear 3/4 view, is IMO not the E-E's best angle. For some reason the shots just look overly colored and fake IMO. Later on, the shuttlebay area looked fake to me. But then again that was in a theatre long ago, it may also have been the poor quality of the film in general, and the silly plotting of the battle scenes that colored my impression.
However, I still think the angle shot for the reveal of the E-E at the beginning of FC had something special in it...perhaps it was the angle of the turn, the background colors, or the homage to TNG that made it special, majestic even.
IMO ILM is still the standard of EFX and they proved it at the time with FC with both CGI and models.
Details are good, and CGI can do it well enough--in fact more than--models, but there's more to it than just detailing. I think we saw it with the astounding detailing of human strands of hair in Final Fantasy: TSW, but the overall effect was still not realistic. I realize humans are a different category, but even with vessels, the detailing can be great but the artistic touch of creating natural lighting conditions can sometimes seem artificial. It's similar to the SW PT where there are highly detailed environments, done with ILM's computing power, yet even still seem rather fake, because they have gotten the mathematics down right but the 'spirit' or 'essence' is still lacking. There is a tendency to overdo it in recent CGI efforts, which makes for an artificial, overproduced quality. And sometimes it can also be very underwhelming, like the end shots of NEM.
Perhaps if INS and NEM had come up with more artistic situations to showcase their CGI shots it would have helped. The Briar Patch, the Scimitar, and the green background of NEM (plus the overall dark lighting employed) made it hard to showcase how nice the film's CGI could have been...
With the new ST film I hope they improve on the tradition set by the good TOS Trek films, which despite now being outdated with their older technology EFX, nonetheless include very artistically shot and well done EFX for the time. TMP is a bit sterile but impressive, TWoK is very servicable and believable, TSFS and TVH are ok, and UC is the zenith of the ILM/TOS era films as far as realism is concerned. Only exception is TFF which was a budget cut mistake (as well as bad film).
With the TNG films I think the EFX in GEN and FC were pretty good, great even, in INS and NEM they matched the standard for CGI at the time but were average artistically in service of average-below average story. I hope the next film will hew more closely towards the artistic traditions of the TOS films and the first 2 Trek films, while using the latest technology in a responsible manner.
You know, I really have to wonder whether this type of attitude has come from. The guy behind this old project is a bigger fan of Trek than Berman ever was, and even Berman would've insisted on minimal changes. Why do you people think Abrams is out to ruin the franchise?Kegek Kringle said:
Ah. Suspected it was too faithful.
Kids, kids, kids... play nice. 
Gabe did this on his own, at first, then ended up being paid to produce an image for the "Ships of the Line" calendar most of us have seen already, where it was portrayed as an "alternative refit Enterprise" concept... what we might have seen instead of the version we actually saw in TMP. In that light... as a rebuild/upgrade... I could have accepted it. And that IS what Gabe was thinking.
He was not contracted by PPC to produce the design for this movie. And they CANNOT USE HIS WORK WITHOUT PAYING HIM FOR IT. They cannot use key elements from his design, for that matter, without risking legal entanglements, unless they got him to sign a "full release of all rights" sort of document (which I doubt anyone who's actually WORKED in the industry would be silly enough to do!)
It's worth pointing out that Gabe has continued to "tweak" his design, up until the point where he got hired to work on the new "Speed Racer" movie (Charlie Sheen, as I understand, stars?). And Gabe's 1701 "upgrade" got shelved for a while. The version seen at the top of this thread was one of his later revisions.
The interesting thing is that his design got closer and closer to the original design over time. Partly, I'm sure, it's due to all of us (and other folks elsewhere) bitching about it not looking right. But part, clearly, was due to his own aesthetics leading him towards the original, too.
Basically, the original is a REALLY GOOD design... "lightning in a bottle" so to speak. The further you deviate from that original concept, the less people (not just Trek fans) seem to like it, and the closer to the original, the more people seem to like it.
I remember mentioning that I think Gabe's a terrific modeler and renderer, but not as good of a designer... and him mentioning that he'd gotten the same from his team leads on other projects. It's not a slam... nobody is good at EVERYTHING. The trick is to figure out where your strengths are and to focus on those. The guy has major strengths in some areas, and that lets him work in an industry that most of the folks here will never have a chance to do. Doesn't mean that he's perfect, or that his work isn't subject to criticism. And, thankfully, it seems clear that the guy gets that and is comfortable with it.
Gabe did this on his own, at first, then ended up being paid to produce an image for the "Ships of the Line" calendar most of us have seen already, where it was portrayed as an "alternative refit Enterprise" concept... what we might have seen instead of the version we actually saw in TMP. In that light... as a rebuild/upgrade... I could have accepted it. And that IS what Gabe was thinking.
He was not contracted by PPC to produce the design for this movie. And they CANNOT USE HIS WORK WITHOUT PAYING HIM FOR IT. They cannot use key elements from his design, for that matter, without risking legal entanglements, unless they got him to sign a "full release of all rights" sort of document (which I doubt anyone who's actually WORKED in the industry would be silly enough to do!)
It's worth pointing out that Gabe has continued to "tweak" his design, up until the point where he got hired to work on the new "Speed Racer" movie (Charlie Sheen, as I understand, stars?). And Gabe's 1701 "upgrade" got shelved for a while. The version seen at the top of this thread was one of his later revisions.
The interesting thing is that his design got closer and closer to the original design over time. Partly, I'm sure, it's due to all of us (and other folks elsewhere) bitching about it not looking right. But part, clearly, was due to his own aesthetics leading him towards the original, too.
Basically, the original is a REALLY GOOD design... "lightning in a bottle" so to speak. The further you deviate from that original concept, the less people (not just Trek fans) seem to like it, and the closer to the original, the more people seem to like it.
I remember mentioning that I think Gabe's a terrific modeler and renderer, but not as good of a designer... and him mentioning that he'd gotten the same from his team leads on other projects. It's not a slam... nobody is good at EVERYTHING. The trick is to figure out where your strengths are and to focus on those. The guy has major strengths in some areas, and that lets him work in an industry that most of the folks here will never have a chance to do. Doesn't mean that he's perfect, or that his work isn't subject to criticism. And, thankfully, it seems clear that the guy gets that and is comfortable with it.
J47 said:
You know, I really have to wonder whether this type of attitude has come from. The guy behind this old project is a bigger fan of Trek than Berman ever was, and even Berman would've insisted on minimal changes. Why do you people think Abrams is out to ruin the franchise?Kegek Kringle said:
Ah. Suspected it was too faithful.
Huh?
I was doing the brickwall emoticon because I'd been suckered into believing it for a moment, despite my suspicions that the design looked a little too faithful. Sorry that wasn't clear.
I think that Abrams film design will probably have more texture and detail than that CGI model. All I want to know is whether it will be aesthetically pleasing. And I'll get back to you on that when an image of the real deal is released.
Actually, the redesign of the Enterprise in TMP is, IMHO, a significant improvement over the original. It takes the same basic idea, cleans it up a bit, and has a considerably more impressive looking model to boot. True, the film had an internal explanation for the redesigned exterior and interiors (but none for the revamped Klingons) but the motive was essentially the same: To make it movie quality. If it didn't pass muster for Gene when he had a big budget, I don't see why it has to pass muster for Abrams.
Now, Abrams may screw up and approve a godawful design, or make a boring movie, or whatever, and if that happens I will condemn him.
I'm not optimistic - I haven't found anything he's involved with that I like - but I won't denounce until I've got something solid, and if I do, it will be for the quality, not the canonicity, of the work in question.
I love Gabe (being a "co-star" and all, of Trekkies 2) and think he is a great 3D artist or whatever, but I am NOT a fan of his "Battlestar Enterprise"...
And those impressions I did of him at the end Trekkies 2 were all in good fun...
And those impressions I did of him at the end Trekkies 2 were all in good fun...
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
ST:TMP's costume designer, Robert Fletcher, apparently did:
Scanned from the February, 1980 issue of Fantastic Films Magazine.
TGT
Kegek Kringle said:
Actually, the redesign of the Enterprise in TMP is, IMHO, a significant improvement over the original. It takes the same basic idea, cleans it up a bit, and has a considerably more impressive looking model to boot. True, the film had an internal explanation for the redesigned exterior and interiors (but none for the revamped Klingons) but the motive was essentially the same: To make it movie quality. If it didn't pass muster for Gene when he had a big budget, I don't see why it has to pass muster for Abrams.
Now, Abrams may screw up and approve a godawful design, or make a boring movie, or whatever, and if that happens I will condemn him.
When you think about it, Roddenberry had more latitude in remaking his Enterprise than Abrams could take (or should have taken). TMP NCC-1701 -- call it a "refit" if you will -- was a new ship, period.
My bet would be this THIRD official version of NCC-1701 will be as different from the first two as the first two are from each other. (That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's more faithful to TOS than TMP was. And, as I posted above, I think it would also be fantastic to be able to imagine the ship could've someday been refitted to look like the TMP ship. That is, its saucer size and secondary hull shape more mimic the TMP ship, not the TOS one.)
Contrary to what everyotherpersoninthefrakingworld thinks, I believe Gabe's Ent is both an updated yet predecessor Enterprise, Look at it like this.
It has a tonne more surface detail and extra panels etc etc, If the movie involves the Enterprise getting a severe beating with alot of the exterior components getting damaged relatively easily, wouldn't it be a more logical design choice to then incorporate all of these exterior elements inside the hull ala TOS 1701? Hell, it would make sense for the engines, which gabes ent makes look cooler (audience member 101: it glowz lololol) it'll also serve a purpose to then cover it to offer it more protection, which in turn moves from the NX-01 (glowing blue bits) > 1701 (No glowing blue bits) > 1701 Refit (Glowing blue bits presumably made out of a stronger alloy).
Anyone catching my logic? Or am i just preaching the Koran to Kansas?
It has a tonne more surface detail and extra panels etc etc, If the movie involves the Enterprise getting a severe beating with alot of the exterior components getting damaged relatively easily, wouldn't it be a more logical design choice to then incorporate all of these exterior elements inside the hull ala TOS 1701? Hell, it would make sense for the engines, which gabes ent makes look cooler (audience member 101: it glowz lololol) it'll also serve a purpose to then cover it to offer it more protection, which in turn moves from the NX-01 (glowing blue bits) > 1701 (No glowing blue bits) > 1701 Refit (Glowing blue bits presumably made out of a stronger alloy).
Anyone catching my logic? Or am i just preaching the Koran to Kansas?
Please take that bet Kegek KringleVulcanJedi said:
Kegek Kringle said:
Ah. Suspected it was too faithful.
Take heart! I bet you anything, the ILM version from Ryan Church will be MORE FAITHFUL than this one. This is needlessly different. although nice, there is no need for it to be so different.
I bet you anything, 3 imaginary dollars that the real version will be exactly like the old show version but with this:
close ups of the hull we never saw
windows
texture we never saw
close up of the nacelles reveals ornate detailed gaseous red stuff in the tips--you know
details that "could be there" from a distance; but we never saw---
These guys are the best; they can do it!
Not just in craftmanship, but creatively as well---
For all we know that nacelles rotate in part, you just never noticed before...
Maybe just the tips rotate and from a distance they Enterprise would still look exaclty the same but ...anyway...there are creative ways.
So it still looks exaclty like an Ent '66.
. I will double VulcanJedi bet that Enterprise for this movie will look Even LESS FAITHFUL then Gabe´s Enterprise (aka to this http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enerhy2.png ) 
Really, were do you get that idea. Isn't this views of few old Star Trek fans who idolize original Enterprise and not young general audience that for most part haven't seen original Enterprise.
I come from northern Europe were Star Trek isn't that big and f.e i have asked my friends what design out of three Original Enterprise, Enterprise Refit & Enterprise E do you like best. None have ever selected original Enterprise and most like Enterprise E and Refit is close second. Also almost everyone ask aren't neck to thin on original and Refit. I think Gabe Koerner Enterprise is alright but it lack originality and it look to like orginal Enterprise.
It's possible Abrams will have an in-universe explanation. He may even avoid one with the film and leave it to be elucidated as a theory by the staff, as in the case of the TMP Klingon makeup.
To what extent the designs will be faithful is obviously unknown - I was surprised, but gratifyingly so, that Spock retains his bowler haircut. But judging from those photos, Quinto didn't have the eyeliner, mascara and lipstick that Nimoy used in the original series.
I suspect we'll get a fairly close design. And by fairly, I mean in the sense the TMP Enterprise has a fairly close resemblance to the TOS Enterprise that the TNG Enterprise does not. So probably a bit further than Kroener.
To what extent the designs will be faithful is obviously unknown - I was surprised, but gratifyingly so, that Spock retains his bowler haircut. But judging from those photos, Quinto didn't have the eyeliner, mascara and lipstick that Nimoy used in the original series.
I suspect we'll get a fairly close design. And by fairly, I mean in the sense the TMP Enterprise has a fairly close resemblance to the TOS Enterprise that the TNG Enterprise does not. So probably a bit further than Kroener.
Right good point and perhaps they aren't any better representative then Star Trek fans who would like almost identical to TOS Enterprise in XI. Only that i can say they(,,my friends,,) aren't emotional attached to TOS Enterprise nor Enterprise Refit. They can look at it and jugde it from aesthetic appearance only, what would be more apelling now..
Excitement how Enterprise will look like clearly is hot topic. I hope they will show it with teaser in January and settle it once it for all..
The desire to create new ship designs WILL be served on this film, don't worry, folks. The new ships with significantly different details simply are different ships. One of the joys of a film like this is that you can expand without contradicting. It's common sense that there would be other ships that don't look like the 1701, and we KNOW that the 1701 didn't always look exactly like it did in TOS throughout it's service life (knowing that there were two significant reworkings to installed systems, though not spaceframe, between "The Cage" and TOS).
It's been debated to death about how the TMP ship could be considered a "refit" when it was stated on-screen that it's an "almost entirely new" ship (One has to wonder... what parts were retained? Maybe a terrarium from the botany lab???) Bottom line is that the TMP ship was NOT really the same ship at all. Most likely, calling it the "same" was a pure political maneuver... an attempt to bypass treaty clauses or funding restrictions.
So, the TMP ship was NOT the same ship as the TOS ship.
The question here is... will the ship we see here be the same ship as the TOS ship? And if not, why not?
We know that "Vejur" hates the original design. He's been telling us that for the past several years. We GET IT. And there are several other "nuTrek" fans who feel similarly.
It's true, I haven't gone out, hired a brigade of grad students, and performed a nationwide poll on who likes what ship best, so my estimation of what's what is based upon my own anecdotal evidence. I think I have a bit MORE "anecdotal evidence" than poor Vejur has, as I've been discussing this topic with friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, in a variety of situations throughout the entire USA for over 40 years. But, granted, it's still anecdotal. Just a bit more reliable than asking my kid sister and my two bestestest buddies about it and calling that conclusive.
I base my assessment on the feelings of folks on this BBS (Vejur is the only person in my poll from last year who really, REALLY wanted the original ship design to be totally dumped, as I recall... the overwhelming majority of Trek BBS posters wanted it to be, externally, "the same as the original but more polished.") I base it upon watercooler conversations after the last several Trek movies (people thought that the 1701-E was... well, "cool looking" but totally forgettable).
But EVERYONE recognizes the classic 1701. I've never found ANYONE who doesn't. Not one single individual, ever, in my personal experience has ever said "what's that?" when seeing this ship. They all, without exception, "get it." The same CANNOT be said for any other version (though some will, occasionally, get the 1701 and the 1701(r) confused). The 1701-B, 1701-C, or even the 1701-D are barely recognized by non-fans. NOBODY knows the Akira or Steamrunner or any of that stuff, outside of hardcore fandom.
But EVERYONE knows the original ship, looking as it originally does.
Sorry, kids, if you subscribe to the "It's not your father's Star Trek" mindset. That sort of "claim it for my own" rebelliousness creates nothing, it only destroys... and it never really lasts. Seriously... going back to the "Lost in Space" argument from above... show people the classic Jupiter 2 and they'll recognize it, show them the movie J-2 and they'll have no clue what they're looking at.
"Iconic" is the term. If you're going to remake something, and there are elements of that which are iconic... those are NOT the elements you should be tossing aside.
No matter if some would-be "fans" really really WANT to throw away the stuff that came along before they became "fans."
It's been debated to death about how the TMP ship could be considered a "refit" when it was stated on-screen that it's an "almost entirely new" ship (One has to wonder... what parts were retained? Maybe a terrarium from the botany lab???) Bottom line is that the TMP ship was NOT really the same ship at all. Most likely, calling it the "same" was a pure political maneuver... an attempt to bypass treaty clauses or funding restrictions.
So, the TMP ship was NOT the same ship as the TOS ship.
The question here is... will the ship we see here be the same ship as the TOS ship? And if not, why not?
We know that "Vejur" hates the original design. He's been telling us that for the past several years. We GET IT. And there are several other "nuTrek" fans who feel similarly.
It's true, I haven't gone out, hired a brigade of grad students, and performed a nationwide poll on who likes what ship best, so my estimation of what's what is based upon my own anecdotal evidence. I think I have a bit MORE "anecdotal evidence" than poor Vejur has, as I've been discussing this topic with friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, in a variety of situations throughout the entire USA for over 40 years. But, granted, it's still anecdotal. Just a bit more reliable than asking my kid sister and my two bestestest buddies about it and calling that conclusive.
I base my assessment on the feelings of folks on this BBS (Vejur is the only person in my poll from last year who really, REALLY wanted the original ship design to be totally dumped, as I recall... the overwhelming majority of Trek BBS posters wanted it to be, externally, "the same as the original but more polished.") I base it upon watercooler conversations after the last several Trek movies (people thought that the 1701-E was... well, "cool looking" but totally forgettable).
But EVERYONE recognizes the classic 1701. I've never found ANYONE who doesn't. Not one single individual, ever, in my personal experience has ever said "what's that?" when seeing this ship. They all, without exception, "get it." The same CANNOT be said for any other version (though some will, occasionally, get the 1701 and the 1701(r) confused). The 1701-B, 1701-C, or even the 1701-D are barely recognized by non-fans. NOBODY knows the Akira or Steamrunner or any of that stuff, outside of hardcore fandom.
But EVERYONE knows the original ship, looking as it originally does.
Sorry, kids, if you subscribe to the "It's not your father's Star Trek" mindset. That sort of "claim it for my own" rebelliousness creates nothing, it only destroys... and it never really lasts. Seriously... going back to the "Lost in Space" argument from above... show people the classic Jupiter 2 and they'll recognize it, show them the movie J-2 and they'll have no clue what they're looking at.
"Iconic" is the term. If you're going to remake something, and there are elements of that which are iconic... those are NOT the elements you should be tossing aside.
No matter if some would-be "fans" really really WANT to throw away the stuff that came along before they became "fans."
trevanian
Rear Admiral
A strategy for revealing the ship occurred to me while rereading this thread. It'd be interesting to see the ship revealed only in closeup details in the first few exterior shots, basically showing interesting detail or very unfamiliar camera angles or even sections that are unfinished with framework visible. You could maybe get by on this by showing wide shots of the ship in dock that obscure the general outline of the ship.
The payoff here would be when you DID get a good reveal on the ship (pulling out of dock, or unwarping into a close flyby), you'd get a moment like the ALL GOOD THINGS future e-d, an intro that was really bold and defining (if done right.)
Then again, if the trailer blows all the details and the shape, that'd wipe out any surprise this kind of approach would provide.
The payoff here would be when you DID get a good reveal on the ship (pulling out of dock, or unwarping into a close flyby), you'd get a moment like the ALL GOOD THINGS future e-d, an intro that was really bold and defining (if done right.)
Then again, if the trailer blows all the details and the shape, that'd wipe out any surprise this kind of approach would provide.
I'm glad this news turned out to be false. It's a nice design, but it's not fitting for the NCC-1701. It would be a decent predecessor of the NCC-1701 since it blends elements from the NX-01 and the NCC-1701. It's less advanced looking than the NCC-1701.
In the end I hope they go with the classic look for the NCC-1701 since that's what it is: classic.
In the end I hope they go with the classic look for the NCC-1701 since that's what it is: classic.
One thing that you won't pick out in the still shots of this is that Gabe was basically rethinking what Warp Drive is, how it works... not in a technical sense, exactly (he's no engineer!) but in a "what looks cool" sense.
The "blue panel" on the top is backlit in a way that makes it appear that there are big rotational cam/gear mechanisms inside the engine. Basically, you see clear indications of rotating machinery behind those (to my eye, very silly!) windows on top.
That's very hard to reconcile with anything from the TOS intentions or the TMP or TNG era intentions regarding what warp drive is and how it works. It's interesting visual detail, but it's inconsistent at a very fundamental level with "everything we've ever seen."
I actually rather like Trevanian's description, above... except that I really think we'll see other starfleet ships much more than we'll see the 1701. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see just what he describes... small hints of exterior or the interior sets, but nothing too overt, and then a final "big reveal" of the ship late into the film, at or near the climax (or, perhaps, after the climax, coming in to clean up the mess)?
The "blue panel" on the top is backlit in a way that makes it appear that there are big rotational cam/gear mechanisms inside the engine. Basically, you see clear indications of rotating machinery behind those (to my eye, very silly!) windows on top.
That's very hard to reconcile with anything from the TOS intentions or the TMP or TNG era intentions regarding what warp drive is and how it works. It's interesting visual detail, but it's inconsistent at a very fundamental level with "everything we've ever seen."
I actually rather like Trevanian's description, above... except that I really think we'll see other starfleet ships much more than we'll see the 1701. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see just what he describes... small hints of exterior or the interior sets, but nothing too overt, and then a final "big reveal" of the ship late into the film, at or near the climax (or, perhaps, after the climax, coming in to clean up the mess)?
Similar threads
- Poll
