Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Michael, Jun 1, 2020.
^^ And TMP itself has the TOS Enterprise represented on the Rec Deck.
I wish members would stop saying that because it implies TOS was cheap to make, and it wasn't. The SFX done on Star Trek in 1966 was state of the art. As sfx evolved Star Trek did as well, but a lot of the inspiration for the new design came from 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars which was a case of chasing trends. Strange how Roddenberry never read how those designs he aped were made, in particular George Lucas where his team had to smash models and rebuild them because he couldn't make them smooth because of his budget constraints, but shoot forward in the future when he returned to Star Wars his ships looked less constructed and was more in the vein of TOS.
It's a complete slap in the face of the pioneers who worked blood and sweat on the series we all claim to love.
TMP represents the victory of Roddenberry’s “visual vision” over Jefferies. That conflict goes back to 1964, with Jefferies fighting against Roddenberry’s requests for scale references and added detailing. When Jefferies left Phase II and that production evolved into TMP, the one guy fighting for the “smoothness” aspect of the TOS look was gone. Which is ironic because it was in TMP that we finally saw the deep space darkness paired with self illumination and weird ambient lighting that Jefferies thought would really allow the smooth hull to “shine”.
Just to show Jefferies was an artist who understood what a design could bring to the caliber of a series than Roddenberry who wasn't an artist.
TOS was never state of the art for a motion picture, even in its own time. There's more to that than simply VFX. And, no, that doesn't imply that TOS was cheap to make for a television show.
If you're going to bring up chasing trends, you might want to compare the script of "The Cage" with the script of Forbidden Planet.
Whoa, there. I'm afraid neither "Trials and Tribble-ations" nor "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" will qualify.
In "Tribble," the space VFX of the Klingon D7 do not mesh with original TOS VFX [https://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x06/trialstribbleations247.jpg]. That D7 looks like it's itching to transform into a K't'inga.
In "Mirror," the never-seen-before sections of the ship in the engineering section do not have a TOS flavor but rather have a super-ENT flavor. The phaser dematerialize VFX are not TOS dematerialize VFX, but rather they are derivative of the TWOK and TNG school of thought for how those VFX should look. And the Gorn, WTF, it's not a TOS Gorn; it's a product of the post-Jurassic Park era.
As for "Relics," you're going to hang your hat on the holodeck scene? When I look at the Jenolan interiors, I don't think TOS era or even TMP era. I think TNG era with TOS transporter sound FX [https://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=129&page=3].
You're putting words in my mouth. And the fact is that TOS Klingons were not depicted as "werewolves" or anything involving that much makeup. If they had been, then the TOS makeup budget would have been affected accordingly. Given how much talking Kor, Kang, Mara, et al. did, they couldn't have convincingly been simply werewolves, it's worth it to note. Even Lenard's Klingon did more than just bark (ha!) a few orders (the universal translator scene). Nothing so "off-the shelf" as rendering Klingons with literal werewolf makeup would have sufficed, especially at the level of a motion picture.
One doesn't need to turn to Star Wars to see alien makeup in science fiction motion pictures surpassing that used for the Klingons in Star Trek TOS. Planet of the Apes provides an actual contemporary example. It's putting words in my mouth to suggest that I was comparing 1960s television with 1970s motion pictures by those remarks, although by 1979 the expectation was clearly that the standards of late 1970s cinema be observed.
Koloth's ship was never shown in 'The Trouble with Tribbles.' And Greg Jein's model has just the right amount of detail without going completely overboard as a Klingon ship of that era. Compare that to, say, the D5 from ENT.
I'll agree about the Gorn, but as for the Defiant's interior, if you're referring to this:
I'm not quite seeing the 'super-ENT flavor' that you're referring to. If anything, it harkens back to TAS showing other sections of the ship that weren't seen in TOS proper.
Yes, I'm referring to the NCC-1701 bridge. The Jenolan is irrelevant to the discussion, as it's not from the TOS era.
So? It does not agree with the D7 of TOS S3 is the point. It is indicative of visions of 23rd century Klingon tech created post-TOS.
The circular corridors [https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/m...ision/latest?cb=20120330000724&path-prefix=en].
So, informed by post-TOS concepts, then?
Then why was the transporter sound of the TOS era used aboard her, something that isn't used in any other case except in the TOS era?
So? It looks like a D7 to me, only with a little more pronounced surface detailing on the wings. And despite that, it doesn't look out of the ordinary as a TOS-era ship, at least not as much as you're trying to make it out to be. Compare that to the D7 in DSC, which looks nothing like the TOS D7.
Your image isn't showing up for me.
Technically, TAS is post-TOS. Conceptually, it's no different from TOS.
Who was talking about sounds? I was talking about sets and ship designs.
I was. Right in the post you quoted to begin with.
I meant it to be the image visible here:
Not technically the corridors themselves, but the separators, the circle motif is a far more ENT aesthetic than a TOS one.
Maybe I didn't word that well. I know you were talking about it. I was asking what TOS sound effects on a TMP-era ship have to do with TOS set and ship design? It's just a sound effect taken from an audio library.
So what does that have to do with the Defiant?
@CorporalCaptain, @Dukhat, @STEPhon IT — I moved your tangential discussion into this thread to not further derail the other one. You may just continue here.
Thanks. I was also concerned that we were derailing Warped9’s thread.
If I ever rework my own Lightwave model I will scale it as you have, mine I scaled to 1311.5 feet,
... My CONSTRUCTION NOTES on the first page explain how I ended up with 1341 feet. The constant is ceilings that are 10 feet high, but the variables are the thickness of the hull and the thickness of the decks (*). I chose to make the hull and the decks the same thickness everywhere on the ship.
As I changed the numbers I would scale the outline of the ship and check to see how well certain features lined up (the Bridge and the Hangar Bay, for example).
Your mileage may vary.
(*) I am reminded of an old math adage: Constants aren't; variables won't.
I did make my decks 10ft and 1ft deck thickness apart from the Bridge I think where I eye-balled the scale there, it was not measured, it's been a long time since I made the basic model in 2016 I think it was when I first started it finishing in 2018. I just wish I had your work to hand back then. I still believe your scale is better, as building 3d models to scale you soon see the accepted canon scale in 3d is problematic, for me it was the hangar bay and shuttle storage. I turned my classic into a reimagined design.
anyway, I love the attention you gave this, I have saved your work should I ever return to ST modelling. you might like this PDF showing where my mind was at the time
This is marvelous. And as I’ve said upthread, it just makes so much more sense to stretch the Enterprise out a bit… everything “fits” now. Besides, the SNW Enterprise is waaay bigger than 947 feet in length, so FWIW there’s that too.
The SNW Enterprise is 8% bigger than this 1341 version.
Separate names with a comma.