New Redesigned Starship Enterprise Revealed ?
- Thread starter ralph
- Start date
cooleddie74 said:
Am I the only one who think's Gabe's version here---though nice and a very neat alternative view of the NCC-1701---looks like the old TOS Enterprise cross-bred with the Ambassador-class Enterprise-C from NEXT GEN?
I agree- There's nothing orginal about it. Either stick with the big E and add more detail, or make a new ship that looks different entirely. This one looks really cool, but it's just a rip off of the E with kit bashed parts...
Sorry for sounding so harsh- it does look cool for what it is though.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Take a look at the night explosion sequence in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD first. And keep in mind that DIE HARD is supposed to be taking place in something approximating reality, whereas the two LOTR films I watched had very little that looks real to me even in the live-action scenes. More in the vein of WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, in fact.
The intent was that it was the same ship, otherwise they would have just flat out stated "this is a new Enterprise". But what was said pretty much states it is the same ship. Consider the following lines for Star Trek: The Motion Picture...
- SCOTT: Admiral, the Enterprise has just finished eighteen months redesigning and refitting. She needs testing, a shakedown...
KIRK: They gave her back to me, Scotty.
KIRK: My experience -- five years out there dealing with unknowns like this -- my familiarity with the Enterprise, this crew...
DECKER: Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don't know her a tenth as well as I do.
But lets not forget that this debate has always been founded on the fact that the TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise are structurally different. And the answer as to why they are different isn't going to be found by parsing the on screen dialog, it is found by studying the Star Trek production during the 1970s.
And that is a study I have been working on for quite some time...
What If... Study of the Evolution of the
Starship Enterprise (PDF, 2.3 MB)
In that study I approach this issue from two directions... (1) What would the Enterprise have looked like if the technology upgrades had been applied to the original 11 foot model, and (2) what would a TOS version of the Enterprise from TMP looked like. What I've found is that if you de-evolve the TMP Enterprise with TOS era technology you end up with a starship that matches Matt Jefferies designs for the Phase II Enterprise (which was not supposed to have been all that extensively refit). And a comparison of early TMP Enterprise plans with Phase II plans shows that the TMP Enterprise used Jefferies Phase II work as a starting point rather than the Enterprise as seen in TOS.
And the changes that Jefferies made to the Phase II Enterprise (beyond the elements outlined for the story) were done most likely in the belief that no one would notice the changes. And those changes would have most likely been less debatable in Phase II than they were with the additional remodeling that was added on for TMP.
All in all, the TOS Enterprise and TMP Enterprise should be viewed in the same way as when you have two different actors playing the same character at different ages... even if they look similar, it is very rare that they look enough alike that the audience wouldn't notice.
Remember, all of this stuff (movies, television... and even stories in general) require the audience to give the story teller a little fudge room. We have grown up in a time where we expect near perfection from our story tellers, but it isn't them (in the end) who suffer by holding our standards that high, it is us (the audience) who miss out on great stories because we have lost the ability to suspend disbelief in the light of limited presentation. Even worse, we have been feed truly bad stories simply because the people presenting them believed that excellent presentation was more important than the story being presented.
As for the subject at hand...
If the Star Trek XI Enterprise was redesigned so that it would be easily upgradeable to the TMP Enterprise, that wouldn't be such a bad thing to live with. From what I was able to tell, it would most likely look something like this...
I get the distinct impression that you don't get out much. I wouldn't classify myself as a fan of either the new Star Wars films or LOTR, but I saw all of them in the theaters.
I may be wrong, but you seem to have predetermined things are "good" or "bad" based on your own bias regardless of what you see. While this is quite the time saver (you already dislike things without giving them a chance, so why give them a chance?), it also (from my point of view) drastically limits the weight of any of your arguments. You aren't arguing the merits, your arguing your preconceptions.
Well, lets look at the economics of this.
Computers are dirt cheep these days and the software for doing most of this type of stuff has fallen to the degree that mere mortals can afford it. This is why you have tons of hobbyist making their own special effects scenes these days.
But when you are talking about motion control equipment... these are very rare and very expensive articles (ranging in price between $20,000 to $200,000), and people who are well trained and experienced in using them are about as rare as the equipment itself.
A couple geeks on their computers for a few days (or even up to a few weeks) is often far less expensive than putting together the model makers, effects camera men and the effects camera equipment to attempt the same shots.
But it is never that simple, specially on large scale productions. Both LOTR and King Kong made extensive use of motion control and miniatures because in those cases the cost had tipped in favor of those methods.
What was the deciding factor? It was easier to create natural feeling landscapes as miniatures, and film them to create environments for both live action and CG characters than to attempt to build that type of stuff within the computer.
Further, it isn't an all or nothing type of thing. CG artist use real life footage within their effects because attempting to create that same look and feel from scratch in a computer is not cost effective. I have used footage of flames and explosions in my brief attempts at CG modeling because it seemed like a waste of time to attempt to make such things within the software.
I started out building physical models and props, and still love building them. But within a matter of weeks I was able to learn a lot about CG modeling and animation, and how to use video editing and effects software. From my limited experience, it seems quite clear that all these tools should be (and are) available and that the best results come from combinations of them rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
That's not necessary, since current CG excels at both...
Didn't you have some background in all of this at some point? Whether one has "figured it out" or not doesn't alter the reality - if motion-control were cheaper and more reliable for achieving the results necessary to compete in the commercial film marketplace that is what the studios would use.
Yep. Within the fictional world of "Star Trek" the TMP ship is a refit of the TOS ship. The producers simply didn't think that the differences in contour between the two models were so significant that any other explanation was necessary.
number6
Vice Admiral
This reminds me of similar debates those in my industry have had over digital audio. There are many who believe that recording on tape delivers a much richer sound to digital audio, but since the industry standard has now moved onto digital, it is widely accepted that most albums are recorded digitally on protools and mastered digitally. Like audio, the quality and tools to deliver CG effects has increased profoundly. The visual medium has noticeably improved over the last decade.
There are some films which have not aged well for embracing new technology. Look at every CG film released in the 90s. Look at B5. Visual effects have made leaps in quality that even the uneducated eye can detect.
I have no problem with a Star Trek production embracing and utilizing current technology. Every Trek production broke new ground with state of the art technology. I suspect the same with this film. Some people may have a problem with this, but then that's the nature of the industry.
Good production values are transparent, while bad production values are not. Who's to say 30-40 years from now that what we did in 2007 might look horribly dated? I have no doubt of this. I can listen to any music recording and guess within a year or two when it was produced based on the sound of the production. Some can do the same with film. I think it's even easier to date a film that employs CG. I also think that CG has become much more photorealistic. I think that is because the people who are really good at it know their stuff and try to push the limits of such technology.
I don't think anyone in the industry who has acquired the chops to do photorealistic CGI is any more likely to turn back to physical models than I am likely to go back to editing with a razor blade on analogue tape.
Such is the nature of progress. People who can't adapt and become adept with tools being used today are out of work tomorrow.
And in fact, one of the weaknesses of the audiophile argument in favor of analog recording has always been that so few master musicians are audiophiles. Simply put, people who are truly discerning and have enough experience of listening to and performing live music at a high level are aware of so many limits and defects in any recording medium that they're accustomed to ignoring or "listening through" them. Therefore, analog vs. digital = "six of one, half a dozen of the other."
The "models are more realistic than CG" claim is similarly silly: once you become aware of what they're doing and what you're looking at, none of it is very real at all.
I think it looks a bit too nobbly and evil for me, though I don't think that they should stay completely true to the original.
I think the ship and bridge should look white, bright, optimistic, sixties without being retro. I don't see the point of retro at all.
The point is, TOS look was just an interpretation of what the far future should look like. We should look back to those days, aim for what they aimed for with what we know now about tech.
The thing I think they should change in the film is the dates. It should be set in the far future, maybe the 28th Century. They've painted themselves into a corner with Khan Singh and all that.
I thin it's going to be a god film. Considering the cast payroll, with all those big stars, it looks that way. They're trying to pull people in.
I think the ship and bridge should look white, bright, optimistic, sixties without being retro. I don't see the point of retro at all.
The point is, TOS look was just an interpretation of what the far future should look like. We should look back to those days, aim for what they aimed for with what we know now about tech.
The thing I think they should change in the film is the dates. It should be set in the far future, maybe the 28th Century. They've painted themselves into a corner with Khan Singh and all that.
I thin it's going to be a god film. Considering the cast payroll, with all those big stars, it looks that way. They're trying to pull people in.
Blip said:
Another god film?? Don't you remember how bad STV was?! :P
(yes, I know it was a typo but it's early where I am and it was too easy to poke fun)
Though for another thread, wasn't there a writer's strike then as well, and some problems with the initial special effects company?
I'd just be satisfied with some shots that bring across the scale of the ship, I think its been lacking of late on the big screen.
No.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Not necessarily. Trendiness trumps efficiency plenty of the time, otherwise you wouldn't have had companies hurriedly adding the word 'digital' to their name to keep employed in the early and mid 90s, when studios -- and the producers who supposedly knew effects -- were ignoring or not returning calls from places like Matte World for a time, because they seemed a little too old school.
But to grant you one point, the matter of competing in the marketplace you mention may be utterly valid, but wholly apart from my whole contention, that you are sacrificing image quality and credibility. But if you consider the marketplace that embraces stuff that looks like crap, then why would you strive to do something better, unless it is at the specific bequest of a director who won't have lesser-looking stuff in his show?
And yeah, I used to write about visual effects alot, but lately it has more been about cinematography (ICG mainly), though I think I'm gonna look up some of the active miniature/motion control guys to see what they think of what is happening.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
While there are plenty of cg fx being done on home computers and the like, that is not the majority of the work. The huge infrastructure required to support digital efforts at major effects houses is far more costly than a bit of stage space for a motion control camera system that has already paid for itself many times over, or for the pretty decent number of folks who know how to shoot using such a system.
You'd have to be able to read Japanese to see it, but I did an article for Cinefex at the time of PHANTOM MENACE that was about 18,000 words on ILM's R&D setup. It was TOO technical to run in the magazine (if you've read Cinefex, you'll know that means something), so it only got run a few years ago, when I guess the Japanese version was hard up for product. The staggering effort and expense of developing and maintaining their system (render farm, etc.) really made it seem kinda ridiculous, considering they had wonderful designs and stuff but wound up outputting most or all at 2K, which was a disservice to ALL their efforts.
I think that starting with real world elements is almost essential with a lot of cg, but there is expertise involved in integrating them, too. So much pyro is just haphazardly applied over CG (even when they've troubled themselves to build a model that is designed to break, like the advantage of the old NURBS stuff) that it doesn't look any better than a lot of badly-supered pyro from early 80s stuff.
The KONG landscape stuff may well be primarily physical, but based on the trailer and ads, it didn't even look real, so I'm guessing that while it was probably well-photographed, you lost the essence of the thing in the comp. That happens a lot, and probably helps lower expectations on a modelwork, even though it has more to do with the way shots are assembled now than the methodologies used to record them.
As to my expectations or having a pov going in ... hey, I was one of the biggest proponents of CG, circa LAST STARFIGHTER and TWOK. I thought the stuff continued to get better in the early 90s, and then a lot better (for certain types of things) in the late 90s. But by that time, it also seemed clear that the original notion -- that you use CG for things you can't already do better in a traditional manner -- was going away, and it was becoming the default mindset to use CG regardless of quality. And that's when I started really wondering what the issue was.
I know that Digital Domain tried to charge a film with a five-figure daily rental for motion control model shooting within the last decade, and that is cleary insanity. It seems more likely that they were trying to push the client into choosing CG. The question again is why? Well, why are certain studios now embracing a particular kind of HD format over another that may be better on a qualitative basis? If we are to believe recent news stories, it was because studios were getting payoffs from one HD supplier. I have no idea if anything of the sort happened in the film industry, but it IS an indication that quality is not necessarily a deciding factor in choosing a methodology or format (Beta and VHS would be another example, or Laserdisk and VHS for that matter.)
Dennis Muren was one of the first vfx guys to get heavily into CG in the late 80s, but I like to go back to what he said about motion-control, which was along the lines of, "motion control lets you do a shot through a single mind. You don't need a lot of stage hands, you can light the shot and do the move all on your own for every element, and you can do so without much in the way of resources."
Some CG houses have let artists do all elements of a shot rather than going the pipeline route (I think Digital Anvil did this for WING COMMANDER.) But you still have the aforementioned infrastructure to support the huge cg effort, and until folks are doing a John Knoll thing and having the whole show done on their macs at home, you're going to need that pricey infrastructure, and until they render at 4K or higher, the imagery isn't going to compare in some cases to stuff accomplished 10 to 40 years earlier.
Similar threads
- Poll
