The Enterprise...then and now?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
"Uh, the 1966 look was the same one in DS9, IAMD, TOS-R, and the SFB games...just with extra details like hull plate lines added, rather than a wholesale redesign. In other words, just what the OP is advocating, so I guess I'm having trouble following your point."
Check a screenshot on trekcore.com of the 1960's show. Not the TOS Remastered. :thumbsup:
Check a screenshot on trekcore.com of the 1960's show. Not the TOS Remastered. :thumbsup:
^ Still not following. It's the same ship, notwithstanding the tweaks made to the physical model between "The Cage," "Where No Man Has Gone Before," and the rest of the series. The ship seen in "Trials and Tribble-ations" was based on the original model, only smaller. TOS Remastered uses a CGI model created from painstaking study of the original model. What am I missing?
The ship in the new flick will definitely have cosmetic differences. Like Dennis, I think it'll be take cues from both the TOS and TMP versions, and I'm cool with that. All I said with regard to this thread was that I didn't think it was necessary, because I think the original design looks great just the way it is.
The ship in the new flick will definitely have cosmetic differences. Like Dennis, I think it'll be take cues from both the TOS and TMP versions, and I'm cool with that. All I said with regard to this thread was that I didn't think it was necessary, because I think the original design looks great just the way it is.
Holytomato, I'm going to take a guess and assume that you're still new to TOS. Because I have no idea what you're talking about. There isn't any real difference between the original Enterprise model and the models used for "Trials and Tribble-ations", "In A Mirror, Darkly" or Trek Remastered. The best argument one could make is that the nacelle caps are a little off, which is somewhat true because each production crew guessed as best they could when recreating them.
Here's where I think you're confused. In some of the exterior space shots used during the original series, we often see reused stock footage (remember, they had a small budget) of the two pilot models of the USS Enterprise. These two models looked very different from the final version that ended up being filmed for the actual series production.
Here's where I think you're confused. In some of the exterior space shots used during the original series, we often see reused stock footage (remember, they had a small budget) of the two pilot models of the USS Enterprise. These two models looked very different from the final version that ended up being filmed for the actual series production.
In a way I accept the Trek XI redesign being different (as well as other aspects of the film) because it firmly casts this project as something apart from TOS and its continuity. No more trying to force-fit a contemporary take on an idea into something forty years old.
That said I don't want to stray too much off topic in regards to the merits (or lack thereof) of the film project and the approaches being taken. So let me try to make my point another way.
Star Trek, like any decent attempt at science fiction, involved imagining a fictional future setting as opposed to trying to accurately predicting it. This approach allows a great deal of creative freedom particularly if you're envisioning a far future setting that allows enough plausible time to have passed since the present to allow for diverging paths in technology and culture. Consistent with that is that the E didn't look remotely like anything we could even envision constructing in the forseeable future. It was meant to look convincingly advanced to the point that we mighn't even be able to conceive how such a construct could be built and operated.
Now couple that with the fact that generations of viewers have been watching TOS for four decades (and consequently garnering new fans with it's "outdated" '60s sensibilities). The effect is that we now have something that has become perhaps as iconic as Superman's or Batman's or Spider-Man's costumes.
However, since TOS there's often been a trend in sf to make hardware look rather industrialized partially as an attempt to make it look supposedly more credible and perhaps also to look like something within reach of forseeable technology. In my view thats akin to trying to rationalize TOS' Eugenics Wars of the 1990s into our actual history and reality. It just doesn't work and it's easier to just accept that TOS' "reality" is not and never has been ours.
The Enterprise was meant as an imagined take on the future and not a predictive one. With that firmly in mind I cannot say that MJ's design looks oudated. The E still looks like nothing we could even consider constructing and operating today and as it should look incredibly advanced. I can allow that there are small details that could be tweaked (particularly with some of the interior sets) to be consistent with contemporary production stanards, but design wise and aesthetically MJ's concepts are still sound.
The only rationale, in my view, to drastically alter the look of the ship is to cater to aesthetic whim and/or to deliberately convey an idea different from what the original was meant to convey.
I recall a friend's comments regarding the then forthcoming first Spider-Man film. He was adamant that Spidey's costume just cannot be made to work for live-action and that it would have to be redesigned. Indeed Sam Raimi even considered alternative proposals for Spidey's costume. But in the end Raimi was adamant: No, Spidey's costume has to look immediately recognizable and within an established way. It is integral to who and what he is. His positive shades of red and blue signal that he is a hero in spite of his rather creepy persona and potentially dark abilities. Raimi pressed the production crew to make Spidey's original costume work...and they did. And even my friend gladly accepted the final result.
As much as I enjoyed Batman Begins and I'm eagerly awaiting The Dark Knight I still don't think they've gotten Batman's costume quite right. Batman cannot be weighed down with fatigue inducing rubber body plating. He could never be the athletic fighting expert he's supposed to be. The costume used in the fan film Batman: Dead End is more what Batman should look like. It's his fighting skills rather than armor that keep him alive. Also Batman's apperance is not meant to frighten the innocent, but in conjunction with his persona he is meant to intimidate the guilty.
The E is supposed to look like something advanced far beyond our means rather than something seemingly within reach, assuming one wishes to evoke an integral element of TOS' appeal.
That said I don't want to stray too much off topic in regards to the merits (or lack thereof) of the film project and the approaches being taken. So let me try to make my point another way.
Star Trek, like any decent attempt at science fiction, involved imagining a fictional future setting as opposed to trying to accurately predicting it. This approach allows a great deal of creative freedom particularly if you're envisioning a far future setting that allows enough plausible time to have passed since the present to allow for diverging paths in technology and culture. Consistent with that is that the E didn't look remotely like anything we could even envision constructing in the forseeable future. It was meant to look convincingly advanced to the point that we mighn't even be able to conceive how such a construct could be built and operated.
Now couple that with the fact that generations of viewers have been watching TOS for four decades (and consequently garnering new fans with it's "outdated" '60s sensibilities). The effect is that we now have something that has become perhaps as iconic as Superman's or Batman's or Spider-Man's costumes.
However, since TOS there's often been a trend in sf to make hardware look rather industrialized partially as an attempt to make it look supposedly more credible and perhaps also to look like something within reach of forseeable technology. In my view thats akin to trying to rationalize TOS' Eugenics Wars of the 1990s into our actual history and reality. It just doesn't work and it's easier to just accept that TOS' "reality" is not and never has been ours.
The Enterprise was meant as an imagined take on the future and not a predictive one. With that firmly in mind I cannot say that MJ's design looks oudated. The E still looks like nothing we could even consider constructing and operating today and as it should look incredibly advanced. I can allow that there are small details that could be tweaked (particularly with some of the interior sets) to be consistent with contemporary production stanards, but design wise and aesthetically MJ's concepts are still sound.
The only rationale, in my view, to drastically alter the look of the ship is to cater to aesthetic whim and/or to deliberately convey an idea different from what the original was meant to convey.
Nicely said.
I recall a friend's comments regarding the then forthcoming first Spider-Man film. He was adamant that Spidey's costume just cannot be made to work for live-action and that it would have to be redesigned. Indeed Sam Raimi even considered alternative proposals for Spidey's costume. But in the end Raimi was adamant: No, Spidey's costume has to look immediately recognizable and within an established way. It is integral to who and what he is. His positive shades of red and blue signal that he is a hero in spite of his rather creepy persona and potentially dark abilities. Raimi pressed the production crew to make Spidey's original costume work...and they did. And even my friend gladly accepted the final result.
As much as I enjoyed Batman Begins and I'm eagerly awaiting The Dark Knight I still don't think they've gotten Batman's costume quite right. Batman cannot be weighed down with fatigue inducing rubber body plating. He could never be the athletic fighting expert he's supposed to be. The costume used in the fan film Batman: Dead End is more what Batman should look like. It's his fighting skills rather than armor that keep him alive. Also Batman's apperance is not meant to frighten the innocent, but in conjunction with his persona he is meant to intimidate the guilty.
The E is supposed to look like something advanced far beyond our means rather than something seemingly within reach, assuming one wishes to evoke an integral element of TOS' appeal.
Trekker, Class of '72. :thumbsup:
The Different models:
1. On Screen- No deflector shield grid on saucer section. No vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Blue/gray hull color
2. DS9/copy of TOS filming model- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. No vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Gray hull color.
3. The Smith- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. Vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Gray hull color.
4. ENT- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. Vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Gray hull color. Aztec pattern on hull. Impulse engines glow.
5. Adam Turner- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. Vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Gray hull color. Aztec pattern on hull. Impulse engines, and nacelle inner surface grills glow.
6. New Voyages/Starship Exeter/Starship Farragut/Of Gods and Men- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. Vertical lines on the nacelles, secondary hull, and dorsal. Gray hull color. Aztec pattern on hull. Impulse engines, and nacelle inner surface grills glow.
7. TOS-R- Deflector shield grid on saucer section. No Vertical lines on the nacelles, and dorsal. Vertical lines on the secondary hull. Gray hull color. Impulse engines glow.
Yes, there are differences. If these changes to the TOS design are acceptable, then what is the problem with Star Trek XI's?
Although I still think those are all very subtle changes, especially since we have yet to see a decent detailed photo of the 11-foot model from that era, I will be the first to admit that I didn't know the original model didn't have any deflector shield grid on the saucer section. In all the diagrams of the Enterprise from the 60s, including the actual official production art from Stephen E. Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek", we can clearly see them. Which may insinuate that they were always meant to be there.
What some of the fans are talking about concern (what they perceive as) significant fundamental changes seen in the trailer. Like the bridge dome being a kit-bash of the original dome and the TMP bridge dome, the larger "on-steroids" nacelles (if they didn't snap off like twigs in Earth's atmosphere during "Tomorrow is Yesterday", they would now!) and the registry identification being extremely close to the rim edge of the saucer.
Are they complaining? No. Are they trashing the new design? No. They're simply stating that they feel this new reimagined Enterprise doesn't adhere to the spirit of the original aesthetics. One can have that opinion and still marvel at the new Enterprise design. I do.
What some of the fans are talking about concern (what they perceive as) significant fundamental changes seen in the trailer. Like the bridge dome being a kit-bash of the original dome and the TMP bridge dome, the larger "on-steroids" nacelles (if they didn't snap off like twigs in Earth's atmosphere during "Tomorrow is Yesterday", they would now!) and the registry identification being extremely close to the rim edge of the saucer.
Are they complaining? No. Are they trashing the new design? No. They're simply stating that they feel this new reimagined Enterprise doesn't adhere to the spirit of the original aesthetics. One can have that opinion and still marvel at the new Enterprise design. I do.
If the ship in the new film is only being modified to that extent, then you'd be on to something. The teaser indicates the redesign goes much further than that. Those aren't redesigned elements as much as they are bringing added detail to the existing design that wasn't possible during the production of the original show.
As to whether the new design (if that indeed is what's happening) is "acceptable" or "unacceptable," I'm one of the those birds of rare plumage, who'll actually wait to see the whole thing before casting judgment. :thumbsup:
There was always a deflector shield grid on the TOS model - it can be seen in close-up shots of the saucer in "The Doomsday Machine." It was applied lightly with pencil or something similar.
The current Smithsonian restoration has exaggerated the hull markings on much of the ship, but the top surface of the saucer has been left strictly alone. The original grid markings are still visible.
The current Smithsonian restoration has exaggerated the hull markings on much of the ship, but the top surface of the saucer has been left strictly alone. The original grid markings are still visible.
The original model did have the deflector grid on the primary hull. It was penciled on once production of the show got underway, supposedly over Matt Jefferies' objections.
EDIT: Oops. You beat me to it, Dennis.
EDIT: Oops. You beat me to it, Dennis.
^ Yeah, I know. I should've been clearer, in that I was referring to Holytomato's pointing out stuff like the changes between the pilots and the series, and the "azteching" in later renditions. Those seem to count as "modifications" in this discussion (not to me), rather than just a better/clearer rendition of what was always present on the physical model but not shown due to limitations of SFX tech/filming during the show's run.
I can accept a little tweaking, as Vektor has done with his latest model; more than anything, it's proof that someone with imagination and skill can take the original design and leave it largely intact, and yet still devise a look that satisfies today's 'detail-obsessed' audience that has grown up with Star Wars and ILM's products as the benchmarks of big-screen VFX. Changing every contour of the ship and adding countless surfaces in order to make it 'work' is plainly unnecessary. I just don't understand all the people who claim there is no possible way the original design can be make to work on the big screen - that we need, at minimum, the sort of detailing from TMP, or more.
That's as unfounded as all those who claim there are no new stories to tell in Star Trek ...
That's as unfounded as all those who claim there are no new stories to tell in Star Trek ...
^ "There are eight billion stories in the naked galaxy...."
"I just don't understand all the people who claim there is no possible way the original design can be make to work on the big screen - that we need, at minimum, the sort of detailing from TMP, or more."
Vector's design is not a copy of the shooting model design, last seen on DS9. It even has the Aztecing from TMP.
So,
Its wrong if Star Trek XI's design is not a copy of the Corbomite Maneuver design.
Its ok if Vector's, ENT's, Adam Turner's, New Voyages, Starship Exeter, Starship Farragut, Of Gods and Men's, The Smith's and TOS-R's designs are not copies of The Corbomite Maneuver design, last seen on DS9.
Vector's design is not a copy of the shooting model design, last seen on DS9. It even has the Aztecing from TMP.
So,
Its wrong if Star Trek XI's design is not a copy of the Corbomite Maneuver design.
Its ok if Vector's, ENT's, Adam Turner's, New Voyages, Starship Exeter, Starship Farragut, Of Gods and Men's, The Smith's and TOS-R's designs are not copies of The Corbomite Maneuver design, last seen on DS9.
Holytomato said:
"I just don't understand all the people who claim there is no possible way the original design can be make to work on the big screen - that we need, at minimum, the sort of detailing from TMP, or more."
Vector's design is not a copy of the shooting model design, last seen on DS9. It even has the Aztecing from TMP.
So,
Its wrong if Star Trek XI's design is not a copy of the Corbomite Maneuver design.
Its ok if Vector's, ENT's, Adam Turner's, New Voyages, Starship Exeter, Starship Farragut, Of Gods and Men's, The Smith's and TOS-R's designs are not copies of The Corbomite Maneuver design, last seen on DS9.
Reductum ad absurdium
Another thing is I don't know if it's just me, but the NCC-1701 looks a bit too large and too close to the edge compared to the ship we're familiar with.
Yeah, there's that, but I don't think we want it to look like we're piling on...
