• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"Polaris"

My Name Is Legion said:
JarodRussell said:
Barbreader said:
Polaris is playing in their own playground, not Paramounts'.
Click to expand...

Just wait when a big company like Paramount releases a similar film, and the Polaris guys get *lawyered*.
Click to expand...

You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, child. :lol:
Click to expand...

Which, honestly, is a perfect description for just about any of his posts.

I for one am quite excited to see Polaris when it's done, and will continue to cheerlead, rally and throw my support to Dennis, Maurice, Nick and their team until the day its released. :)
 
For those who have been following the project but don't check the Star Ship Polaris topic in Trek Art, here's a rundown on what's been going on.

The conversion of Vektor's hero model of our ship to Lightwave format has been completed, and Michael Struck at NEO f/x is finishing up the lighting and rigging for animation.

8331072691_86267ba83b_b.jpg


Vektor has done quite a bit of new concept art for the show which is being modeled by others. His concept for for engineering Main Control:

polaris_engineering_concept02_wip11.jpg


...and the current state of modeling for the virtual set:

8378212867_756b8b68c5_b.jpg


Finally, Vektor's concept design for a United Worlds capital ship:

UWCapitalShipA_wip03.jpg


Polaris on Facebook
 
Looks awesome. Question, though: Did you guys change the engine bells on the booster engines? It's a little hard to tell but they look different.
 
I think it's just an artifact of the motion blur that makes them look a little different. Never mind.
 
I've watched this whole thread for years in silent fascination and admiration. I can't help but think though that it doesn't matter what orientation you see a ship moving through space. I know in the first days of Star Trek they always showed the Enterprise in a top down orientation and if it was in trouble you would see it slightly askew and not moving. Then, to my surprise, all the other Star Trek offspring did the same thing. But now I think, we've sort of accepted the fact that there is no 'up' in space and that seeing ships always at the same upright position is, I don't know how to say this, a bit tired?
 
Well, J.J. Abrams mixed that up a bit in the last Star Trek movie.

I think you might see Polaris do a couple of different things in the course of our movie. Lacking magical shields it's kind of important that they not get hit by the other guy. ;)

Maurice, one of our producers and a guy who knows a lot more about movies than I do, has pointed out to me that there are also reasons having to do with artful film editing that tend to support having vessels of all kinds move in certain directions and orientations. Returning to TOS as an familiar example, we most often saw the bridge of the Enterprise with Kirk facing screen right - and not by coincidence, the customary orientation of the ship in space was traveling forward from screen left to screen right (and they could vary that if they chose, and occasionally did, despite the now well-known limitations of the filming miniature).
 
^^^That's what's known as "directional continuity". Another film convention is that vehicles traveling west cross the screen in a right-to-left direction and those going east left-to-right, which jibes with how we are trained to view maps with up as north, east as right, etc. A lot of fan films mix up shots of ships so that they don't maintain a directional continuity, with the result that the ship's often appear to have turned around between cuts.
 
I get directional continuity and agree it's vital to the narrative. However my quibble was about orientation. In order to keep the fiction going about a planet-like environment, artificial gravity was invented. So unless the ship is a spinner like B5 (which I always imagine the first long-distance transport will be) the orientation is immaterial. You're right there were some shots in Star Trek 09 where the orientation was mixed up and IMO it made it much more 'sci fi' and less aeroplanes in space.
 
Artificial gravity was invented primarily because it was too big a hassle and too expensive to simulate it on-screen, and because it almost always looked fake when they did. ;)
 
maybe it should move across the screen a little faster if you're going to emphasize the speedyness

cool looking though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top