Nah. There were other issues fans had with Star Trek V.
This.
It depended on who you talked to, IIRC. Some thought it was a cool ship, others thought it looked like a whale. Others still adopted Scotty's sentiment towards the ship.
Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?
- Thread starter dswynne1
- Start date
As good as ILM is, I see that as a problem with their people than with the model itself. Doug Trumbull had no problem dealing with that same model on TMP and it looked amazing.
But ILM didn't want to use the same techniques he did. For example, Trumbull photographed the Enterprise miniature against black. That allowed the pearlescent paint job that was part of what made it look so good in TMP. ILM wanted to use traditional blue screen filming, and the blue was reflected off the model's surface, so they had to repaint it and that just destroyed its beauty, IMHO.
Trumbull also mentions in his TMP DVD interview that they commissioned a special periscope lens system to get in close for the camera angles they wanted. ILM apparently was either unwilling or unable to do the same.
No, I think the Constitution model is just fine for filming. I just think that, for whatever reason, ILM wasn't up to the task.
Too bad ILM chose that path. 1701-refit never looked as good as in TMP, now I know why.
I think the effects in TWOK and TSFS are of superior quality compared to those in TMP. Never really cared about the paint job.
Too bad ILM chose that path. 1701-refit never looked as good as in TMP, now I know why.
Really? To each his own, of course, but while I never found the effects of TWOK or TSFS to be particularly bad, I've always felt they can't hold a candle to the effects of TMP. The Enterprise has, IMHO, never looked more beautiful than in TMP.
Then there wasn't much Enterprise footage in TVH, and of course TFF was done by a separate company. But when ILM came back in TUC, I thought the Enterprise looked absolutely hideous, perhaps the worst it's ever looked.
It's all personal opinion, of course, but through all the films and TV series, and all the different models, I don't think the Enterprise has ever looked as good as it did in TMP.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say TWOK and TSFS were of superior quality. You may prefer the look but in terms of quality, TMP was the best the ship ever looked in any of the movies...hands down. ILM flat painted the model and it lost a lot of the sense of majesty it had in TMP. They also used far too much flat lighting in later films.
Thankfully, TWOK used a good chunk of footage from TMP so the later footage at least attempted to look somewhat similar. It's really sad that ILM destroyed the beautiful job Paul Olson did.
Watch this video. It's very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Def97X7EE
trevanian
Rear Admiral
A lot of the flatness has to do with all the processing to get the comps to work. They'd bathe the model in yellow light to avoid having a bluescreen problem, then filter the color back to neutral ... meaning you're getting a faux color, almost a non-color, for the ship.
They finally starting shooting extra passes on TUC, including one against black for beauty, but even with that next round of repainting done for that film, the ship still doesn't look anywhere near as nice as it did originally.
This is kinda circular.
And you guys are solely focused on the Enterprise model. I'm talking all visual effects shots.
Bit young myself to have seen TSFS in the cinema (1984) but gotta say I loved the look of the Excelsior too and even more so when she opened TUC.
Comparing the Excelsior to Vengeance... blasphemy! Hahaha in serious though those ships, to me at least, are in completely different leagues. I do really like the interior of the Vengeance though, apart from the Captains chair.
I remember reading that Harve Bennett and some others had considered doing something like that but opted for a Constitution for symbolism.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
ILM's stuff pretty much always looked the same, they had the same folks shooting Trek as shot SW, EXPLORERS and many others. The techniques are pretty much the same in most cases (ILM didn't start doing the extra beauty pass against black till the BACK TO THE FUTURE sequels, so TUC benefitted directly from that to a modest degree.)
If you really like the ilm spacedock vs the filligreed drydock of TMP, then you're just parroting the usual 'it looks great because it is big' view. To me spacedock is a disaster because it seems so earthbound in its conception, PLUS the execution relies on shooting the interior in smoke, which seems lame almost beyond belief.
There is no accounting for taste. I'm firmly in the TMP camp. However, the overall qualty of ILM's work is more consistent.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Was glad to see it as a kid, but as an adult it's unsatisfying. The Enterprise was destroyed in Star Trek 3. At the end of Star Trek 4 they just give him a new or different (whatever) ship that they slap the same name on.
In retrospect, I would've left the Enterprise destroyed. She's a character. She died. Move on.
In retrospect, I would've left the Enterprise destroyed. She's a character. She died. Move on.
Isn't that real the major flaw of the TOS movies, though? And, don't get me wrong, I like the TOS movies and find them highly enjoyable. But, in the end, they're totally unwilling to change the status quo in any measurable respect, with the possible lone exception of Sulu getting the Excelsior in TUC.
Think about it. Ilia and, especially, Decker shake up the original crew dynamic, but are conveniently gone by film's end. Spock dies. But he comes back. The Enterprise is destroyed. But it comes back. Kirk and crew defy Starfleet and become renegades. But end right back in the same command. Kirk has been promoted chief of Starfleet operations, but ends up right back in the same starship command position. By TFF and TUC, pretty much everyone is right back in the same spots they were in during TOS.
Like I said, I enjoy the films. But for what were supposed to be big events, they really stayed bound to the original TV series and ultimately weren't willing to take any big risks.
Agree. The 1701-A being the Excelsior class or another new class would have been a major plot point for TVH, TFF and TUC.
To be fair, Spock dying and the Enterprise getting destroyed were two incredible changes to the status quo in the TOS films. And before you say anything, the original plan was for Spock to stay dead, and possibly the Enterprise to remain destroyed (i.e. no replacement).
Well, yes, but of course I'm talking about what actually happened on screen, not what was originally planned.
The original plan had been for Decker and Ilia to be permanent crew members (for Phase II), and for Sulu's captaincy to be mentioned as far back as TWOK, and for Saavik to be the traitor in TUC, and so forth. But, ultimately, none of those things happened.
And as regards Spock, you can't even say they were willing to shake up the status quo and then changed their minds after the fact. In fact, everyone except Nicholas Meyer got cold feet about killing Spock during the production of the film and wanted a way out. That's why we got the "remember" mind meld and the photorp tube on the Genesis planet instead of the original ending of the film.
So I don't think any of that changes what I said about TOS being unwilling to shake up the status quo.
YARN
Fleet Captain
They could have and arguably should have stopped with Star Trek IV. They were simply too old in the later films. No need for a new Enterprise. Saving Earth one last time could've been their last adventure.
If they had real stones they would have left Spock dead. Or worse, resurrected Spock would be unstable like the Genesis planet and die again at the end of part 3, LOL (the scene would play out like the end of AI with David meeting mommy one last time).
I don't necessarily think the cast was too old to continue making films after TVH. I don't much care for the attitude that all our movie stars have to be young. But I think it would have been a good idea to allow the characters to progress and age more than they were permitted to do.
In TMP and TWOK, we had new characters (Decker, Ilia, Saavik, Carol, David, etc.) who came and shook up the familiar confines of TOS. Our heroes were still front and center of the story, but they were later in their careers, higher in rank, and generally doing things that made sense. Yes, in both TMP and TWOK, the overarching message of Kirk's promotions is that he's meant to be a starship captain and that anything else "is a waste of material." But, still, we're not expected to believe that these are the same people doing the same things as they did in TOS.
TSFS and TVH were unique animals because our crew were in "fish out of water" scenarios. They were renegades separated from Starfleet and operating on their own. So that made sense as well and, again, changed up the TOS dynamic.
But then TFF comes along and what do we have? Kirk is mountain climbing. Chekov is back at the navigator's station. The Enterprise is back. Everything has returned to the status quo, and the status quo is now 30 years out of date and doesn't make a lick of sense. At least TUC had Valeris and Sulu off commanding his own ship, and tried to justify the rest by tossing in lines about the crew being called on for this one super-important mission. But it was still basically a film that represented the TOS status quo.
Bottom line: If TFF and TUC had been as willing to introduce new character dynamics as TMP-TVH had, I think they could have gone on just fine regardless of the characters' ages. But by shoehorning these people all back into their old, familiar roles (again, Sulu excepted), it made those films far less believable than the earlier four. IMHO, of course.
In TMP and TWOK, we had new characters (Decker, Ilia, Saavik, Carol, David, etc.) who came and shook up the familiar confines of TOS. Our heroes were still front and center of the story, but they were later in their careers, higher in rank, and generally doing things that made sense. Yes, in both TMP and TWOK, the overarching message of Kirk's promotions is that he's meant to be a starship captain and that anything else "is a waste of material." But, still, we're not expected to believe that these are the same people doing the same things as they did in TOS.
TSFS and TVH were unique animals because our crew were in "fish out of water" scenarios. They were renegades separated from Starfleet and operating on their own. So that made sense as well and, again, changed up the TOS dynamic.
But then TFF comes along and what do we have? Kirk is mountain climbing. Chekov is back at the navigator's station. The Enterprise is back. Everything has returned to the status quo, and the status quo is now 30 years out of date and doesn't make a lick of sense. At least TUC had Valeris and Sulu off commanding his own ship, and tried to justify the rest by tossing in lines about the crew being called on for this one super-important mission. But it was still basically a film that represented the TOS status quo.
Bottom line: If TFF and TUC had been as willing to introduce new character dynamics as TMP-TVH had, I think they could have gone on just fine regardless of the characters' ages. But by shoehorning these people all back into their old, familiar roles (again, Sulu excepted), it made those films far less believable than the earlier four. IMHO, of course.
While I agree that they should have stopped making TOS films after IV, I also agree that there was nothing inherently wrong with the age of the crew. The cast being old was not what made STV fail.
Honestly, I think that at that point, we had TNG to blame for STV. What you describe (introducing new character dynamics, allowing the older characters to grow and change) would probably have happened if it was going to lead to something bigger (i.e. a new TV series with a new crew, or a mix of the new and old crews). But TNG was already on the air and the focus was on that. There wasn't any more "new" story for the TOS crew, so instead we got the status quo again because that's what TNG was doing. No, I agree that it didn't make any sense, and it certainly didn't help that STV was so damn bad (unless you ascribe to the "STV as Kirk's dream" interpretation that was brought up in another thread...)
