• 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!

Revisiting Star Trek TOS/TAS...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but those look intentional to me..not incomplete. I see a lot more detail on the new cgi models yet they maintain the simplicity of the originals. I have no doubts they could do something like this: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/D5_class But that wasn't the goal at all.

RAMA
And so they deliberately distort or change the look of the original design, a design that has become iconic? That's even worse than sloppy work.

You call others biased because they have a differing viewpoint, but you won't accept evidence when it's right in front of you. :wtf:

Give it a rest, it may be iconic, but its Hollywood...endlessly maleable in its plans and designs. I bet you think its heresey they even designed the BOP in STIII, and added the Vorcha in STNG! I am certain you were ready to proclaim a holy war when Greg Jein changed the D7 in DS9! I have no problems with tweaking the D7 in TOS-R, its not like it has an extra nacelle up its ass...Ah the temptation...

RAMA
 
^^ You give it a rest. We disagree with something that's been done and all you can do is call us biased and unwilling to look at something else. Yet someone points out what is clearly bad work and you still say we're biased.

You give it a rest. Your own bias is so clearly showing.

And if you find my viewpoint so questionable then why bother posting in this thread since my opinion is so obviously skewed and I can't be trusted to have any sort of objectivity? I'm also clearly deficient because I don't automatically accept everything Paramount ever shat out of its ass.
 
Last edited:
Hardly anything works on Chrome. :scream:
With all the crappy applets and pop-ups and stuff you run into on some web pages these days, I'm not sure if that's a fault or a benefit! :lol:

Definitely a benefit, in my opinion. I ran Firefox for a while, but I stopped using it both because the spoiler code on this site wouldn't work for some reason, and because it was constantly crashing (and I mean every 2-3 minutes).
 
theenterpriseincidenthd0300a.jpg


Wow, I found myself gazing over this several time, this is my single fav shot of the D7 from the TOS-R or TOS for that matter.

Shouldn't this be in the cgi thread?

Sorry, but those look intentional to me..not incomplete. I see a lot more detail on the new cgi models yet they maintain the simplicity of the originals. I have no doubts they could do something like this: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/D5_class But that wasn't the goal at all.

That flushing sound you hear is the last tattered remnants of RAMA's credibility being flushed down the loo...
 
Re: Wink of an Eye

Someone on the set must have realised the doors on the Enterprise would open far too slowly for anyone accelerated. Convenient that they're all open throughout the episode!
 
Re: Wink of an Eye

Someone on the set must have realised the doors on the Enterprise would open far too slowly for anyone accelerated. Convenient that they're all open throughout the episode!
Now I have images of Kirk and Deela playing canasta with the sounds of elevator muzak 'The Girl from Ipanema' playing while they are waiting for the door to open.:guffaw:
 
Re: Wink of an Eye

Someone on the set must have realised the doors on the Enterprise would open far too slowly for anyone accelerated. Convenient that they're all open throughout the episode!
You're right. I had forgotten to mention that. There are just too many things that don't make sense, including the bit about how fast the Scalosian water and Spock and McCoy's counteragent work so quickly. But, of course, fast acting agents and remedies are an old staple film and television sci-fi and that's still done today.
 
Last edited:
That flushing sound you hear is the last tattered remnants of RAMA's credibility being flushed down the loo...
It's amusing in its way. We've got two fellows where I work. Happens they don't always get along. The other day one is griping that the other has a bad tendency to over self-aggrandize himself and his background, and this from a fellow who tends to do the exact same thing. :lol:

One shouldn't accuse others of bias when they are pretty clearly biased themselves.
 
theenterpriseincidenthd0300a.jpg


Wow, I found myself gazing over this several time, this is my single fav shot of the D7 from the TOS-R or TOS for that matter.

Shouldn't this be in the cgi thread?

Sorry, but those look intentional to me..not incomplete. I see a lot more detail on the new cgi models yet they maintain the simplicity of the originals. I have no doubts they could do something like this: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/D5_class But that wasn't the goal at all.

The extra detail you see is some very well-painted image maps, done by an artist who took more care in his work than whoever made the crappy low-poly mesh.
 
I just think that anyone that can't admit that the digital D-7 in TOS-R is a low-polygon model is just plain biased. Or doesn't know what 'low-polygon' means. :shrug:
 
Give it a rest, it may be iconic, but its Hollywood...endlessly maleable in its plans and designs. I bet you think its heresey they even designed the BOP in STIII, and added the Vorcha in STNG! I am certain you were ready to proclaim a holy war when Greg Jein changed the D7 in DS9! I have no problems with tweaking the D7 in TOS-R, its not like it has an extra nacelle up its ass...Ah the temptation...

This is apples and oranges and you know it. You're comparing two new productions (twenty to thirty years after the original) to one that was already complete. That they replaced the D-7 model with a low-polygon version made no sense. The whole purpose of TOS-R was to make the show viable in HD and yet they put a model on there with very clear deficiencies that would be very noticeable in HD.

You shouldn't be accusing those who spot the error of bias, you should blame the people who put out the sub-standard work to begin with.
 
I posted this in the TOS-/TOS-R thread, but I think it bears repeating here:

If you feel very strongly about something then it's all very well to state your opinion and your reasoning and stand by it. But I think it's often best that you not belabor it, not pound others over the head with it until you feel you've beaten acceptance of the convincing arguments into them.

I've seen friends (and others) argue and argue and argue (well, okay, animated discussion :lol:) about something trivial each intent to convince the other. And it always led nowhere. No one likes to be told repeatedly that they're wrong.

On the other hand I've often found it more effectively to just make your point, stand by it, and let others mull over it themselves. Sometimes they eventually accept your point all on their own, and without a lot of futile effort from you. In the interim it doesn't hurt to ponder someone else's points because maybe they have one you hadn't been aware of or considered before.

But in the end it's a discussion, a sharing of viewpoints and opinions. There aren't any scores or awards for convincing others.

The same applies to my takes on the episodes I've been revisiting, be they TOS, TNG or whatever. If I like something and it works for me then no amount of dissenting viewpoint or argument will convince me otherwise. And the same goes for me as well. I'm just sharing what I see and experience and it's not my intent to convince anyone else.
 
I just think that anyone that can't admit that the digital D-7 in TOS-R is a low-polygon model is just plain biased. Or doesn't know what 'low-polygon' means. :shrug:

No, I actually like TOS-R but I did feel that the D-7 was a bit lacking, having personally seen a lot better in several games over the years. The hard lines of the engineering hull really hurt the look of the ship. The "Tribbles and Tribulations" mesh was far superior, and I'm not sure why it wasn't used.
 
Candidly I didn't like that they made the D7 just another grey coloured ship as opposed to how Matt Jefferies painted the original. And to some extent that's also true of how the Enterprise was often shown in TOS-R. No longer did these ships give me the impression that they were made of advanced and futuristic materials, but rather just familiar looking metal. Same with the Romulan BoP.
 
I just think that anyone that can't admit that the digital D-7 in TOS-R is a low-polygon model is just plain biased. Or doesn't know what 'low-polygon' means. :shrug:

No, I actually like TOS-R but I did feel that the D-7 was a bit lacking, having personally seen a lot better in several games over the years. The hard lines of the engineering hull really hurt the look of the ship. The "Tribbles and Tribulations" mesh was far superior, and I'm not sure why it wasn't used.

The D-7 in "Trials" was actually a physical model.
 
I just think that anyone that can't admit that the digital D-7 in TOS-R is a low-polygon model is just plain biased. Or doesn't know what 'low-polygon' means. :shrug:

I'm not sure it's low polygon per se; but the overall texture/material maps used just do not work. I also don't know why they made it grey as it was always white in the original shots; and there's no reason the Klingons wouldn't 'paint' there ships. For all we know it could have been white for othor technical reasons, so to just change it to grey with a texture/material map that just doesn't work or wasn't applied well doesn't make sense to me (and I actually like a lot of the other work done for TOS-R; but yeah, the D-7 model is a low point.
 
I just think that anyone that can't admit that the digital D-7 in TOS-R is a low-polygon model is just plain biased. Or doesn't know what 'low-polygon' means. :shrug:

No, I actually like TOS-R but I did feel that the D-7 was a bit lacking, having personally seen a lot better in several games over the years. The hard lines of the engineering hull really hurt the look of the ship. The "Tribbles and Tribulations" mesh was far superior, and I'm not sure why it wasn't used.

"Trials and Tribble-ations."

I don't know why nobody ever gets that right!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top