The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Data Holmes]

Can I ask a humble question? If it turns out that, visual details aside, the structural changes to the ship. I'm talking about the changes to the bridge deck structure, and possiably the sizing...

If they were change so that the sets would "fit within the hull" as it were, would it still be such an egregious move?


The reason I bring this up, I'm a lurker at a CGI board. On said board there is a member doing a model of the Shuttle bay and cargo deck from TMP. An amazing set and matte which I've always loved. He has discovered that there is no way to fit it within the hull of the ship as shown.

This has historically been a problem with trek. It's ships all suffer from TARDIS syndrome. It's the side effect of it being a TV/Movie show and not real, where sets are not designed with that in mind, but how they look on screen.


I know that it drives me insane from a TrekTech standpoint. So, if JJ and his team made these changes to correct the ship, so that it's innards match it's outwards, then I can live with it.


As to the Aztecing, I will always apply GR's explanation of the change in the klingon appearance to it. It was always supposed to look like that, but the Budget or tech limitations prevented it's appearance in the show. Not the best, but frankly, I like the aztec panel look when done right.

 

[aridas sofia]

As we have exhaustively discussed here and at the aforementioned HobbyTalk, the single set that creates any problem is the hangar deck. And it only creates a problem because folks insist that a distorted shooting model, created to permit a big camera to stick up its bum, be the "real" layout of the deck. This in spite of the fact that Jefferies -- the ship's designer -- later showed us how he intended the undistorted hangar deck to look -- much smaller.

As you know, Enterprise was called a "heavy cruiser" and not a carrier. On a naval heavy cruiser, there might be two catapult-launched scout planes, and no more. This was the model being followed in TOS, and not the carrier. The use of the term "hangar deck" and the distorted hangar miniature, not to mention the preposterous drawing of that space in TAS, has left this mistaken perception that the model of the ship doesn't fit its interior. But if in order to get a giant hangar deck you have to double the size of the ship, what have you accomplished? You've distorted the entire design in order to get it to match the distorted hangar. It seems pretty wrongheaded to me, and aimed only at a simplistic "wow" factor that will soon be replaced by a "ho hum, that's the way it is" attitude. The ship was 947 feet long. Isn't that enough?

Last summer, at Newport News, I saw two monster carriers (Carl Vinson and George H. W. Bush) at dock. Both about 1000 feet long at the waterline. They were plenty impressive at that length, believe me.

 

[MGagen]

One of my biggest problems with Gabe's design is that, judging by the windows, it looks so freakin' huge! I am tired of each new Enterprise being bigger than the last. At some point you just have to paraphrase a character from another franchise and say, "That's no ship, it's a space station!" Nine hundred and forty seven feet is plenty big for the original E. If they make it much bigger, they've obviated the need for any of the TMP touches in the design because it can't possibly be the same ship.

And as for my HobbyTalk post, I may as well post it here in its entirety, to put the portion already quoted in context:

MGagen said (On HobbyTalk):
.
Why all this talk that the Enterprise in the new movie must look more MODERN than the original. That is precisely how it should NOT look.
.
Modern means NOW. Modern will look DATED in a year or two.
.
Matt Jefferies' designs still work because they NEVER looked MODERN. They looked FUTURISTIC -- and they still do. Too bad we can't see his original designs fully realized with MODERN film technology. I'd love to see them full-blown and uncompromised by mid-60s TV limitations.
.
Give me a bridge with the same design he created, but with all the delicate curves and ergonomic sensibilities he had to forego so Desilu's union carpenters could bring the set in on budget. Give me that upper ring of data screens dancing with live information from each department, so the captain can absorb the true state of his ship at a glance from his command chair. Give me holographic, heads-up labels that seem to hover in space over the various colorful buttons on Uhura's console, reconfiguring with each separate function overlay she selects, and fading from view as the camera trucks away from her station.
.
No, Jefferies' designs are not dated, or too unambitious for the big screen. They are surprising in their depth and scope and as pristine and futuristic as ever; waiting for someone with a sense of awe and the imagination to set them free...
.
...and that's what Star Trek art direction is all about, Charlie Brown.

And yes, seeing Aridas, Cary, Ptrope, Dennis and even Capt. April all agree on something is strangely refreshing. Adding ME to the mix makes it look like a Sign of the Imminent Apocalypse!

M.

 

[Irishman]

aridas sofia said:
^ Absolutely. I'm all for fleshing out background, establishing enough framework to give a fictional reality a sense of depth and plausibility, and then sticking with it. That's what I do when I write history, it's what I do when I write historical fiction, and it's natural for me to do it when I write SF. I love the challenge of creating "future history". I'm not saying everyone should do it that way, and I know most don't, but it's what I enjoy.

But then, I guess you'd know that.

But that's not what canon onscreen Trek has been about, ever. My point being, they've NEVER (and this includes Gene) let being beholden to visual consistency or social consistency get in the way of telling a story. Telling the story has been the first order, while using visuals and the rest of it as a medium for carrying that forward. Do we really NEED to go back to TOS even to find numerous examples of this? Because I can.

You know I can.

Don't make me do it.

 

[aridas sofia]

Not only are you correct, but your point is one I've made many times. I'm not saying anyone should do it the way I do -- I was explicit about faux histories being my way. But the M.O. for those artists that created TOS was to skillfully keep details vague except where they were needed for the story, and there, in those few places, to put a great deal of thought into those details.

The accumulation of such thought over the course of 79 episodes and TMP was a very skillfully wrought universe, with plenty of room for the mind to roam and fill in other details.

 

[Irishman]

So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Irishman said:So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

Well, nothing Aridas (or any of the other folks who created the really good stuff back in the 80s) made was ever accepted as "canon" and nothing he ever did actually OVERWROTE anything that had already been formally established (as far as I'm aware, at least).

The tendency to use inflammatory terms like "villify" and phrases like "why do you all hate JJ Abrams so much?" are totally misrepresentative of what's being discussed, and serves only to attempt to misrepresent the statements of people who are discussing matters having nothing to do with villainy, hatred, or anything of the sort. Please try to refrain from doing that, K?

Nobody (well, one or two posters, but nobody in THIS thread at least!) has, even once, "villified" Abrams or anyone on his team. We have, however, to various degrees, expressed CONCERN that we feel that there may be mistakes being made... things that will, if true, very likely do harm to a body of work that we feel a degree of personal investment in.

The issue isn't that anyone thinks he's a "bad guy," only that we're concerned about seeing changes to art that is already very well-established, without any apparent justification.

 

[Relayer]

Cary L. Brown said:

Irishman said:So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

Well, nothing Aridas (or any of the other folks who created the really good stuff back in the 80s) made was ever accepted as "canon" and nothing he ever did actually OVERWROTE anything that had already been formally established (as far as I'm aware, at least).

The tendency to use inflammatory terms like "villify" and phrases like "why do you all hate JJ Abrams so much?" are totally misrepresentative of what's being discussed, and serves only to attempt to misrepresent the statements of people who are discussing matters having nothing to do with villainy, hatred, or anything of the sort. Please try to refrain from doing that, K?

Nobody (well, one or two posters, but nobody in THIS thread at least!) has, even once, "villified" Abrams or anyone on his team. We have, however, to various degrees, expressed CONCERN that we feel that there may be mistakes being made... things that will, if true, very likely do harm to a body of work that we feel a degree of personal investment in.

The issue isn't that anyone thinks he's a "bad guy," only that we're concerned about seeing changes to art that is already very well-established, without any apparent justification.

Can I get an Amen from the congregation?
Well said! :thumbsup:

 

[Irishman]

Those at the wheel don't really need to justify their actions to us in steerage.

We're all along for the ride. I hope they make a thrilling and satisfying one.

 

[aridas sofia]

Irishman said:
So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

You have a vivid imagination. I have "vilified" no one.

Try going back through my past posts before starting the flame act. I've been receptive of any reimagining that exercises enough care to pique my interest. However, with your permission, I'll reserve the right to express my preferences.

 

[aridas sofia]

Irishman said:
Those at the wheel don't really need to justify their actions to us in steerage.

We're all along for the ride. I hope they make a thrilling and satisfying one.

Absolutely. Sure. Whatever.

Marketing, defined

 

[Irishman]

aridas sofia said:

Irishman said:
So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

You have a vivid imagination. I have "vilified" no one.

Try going back through my past posts before starting the flame act. I've been receptive of any reimagining that exercises enough care to pique my interest. However, with your permission, I'll reserve the right to express my preferences.

Didn't mean to imply you had. But others on this and other boards have. Unrepentantly.

There are just so many more important things in this world to get one's panties in a twist over. Global warming? Starvation? Energy problems? Wars? Man's inhumanity to man?

We could all use a shift in priorities. It's just a movie. They're all just movies and tv shows. Sometimes I think we forget that.

 

[Holytomato]

"We have, however, to various degrees, expressed CONCERN that we feel that there may be mistakes being made... things that will, if true, very likely do harm to a body of work that we feel a degree of personal investment in.

The issue isn't that anyone thinks he's a "bad guy," only that we're concerned about seeing changes to art that is already very well-established, without any apparent justification."

"So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?"

Exactly. It has been known for a very long time that we were not getting a movie exactly like "The Corbomite Maneuver". So, reacting with surprise, and anger that the makers having made Star Trek XI look exactly like "The Corbomite Maneuver" is getting ridikulus.

 

[ancient]

Irishman said:

aridas sofia said:

Irishman said:
So then, why can not THESE minds roam and fill in their OWN details without being vilified for it?

You have a vivid imagination. I have "vilified" no one.

Try going back through my past posts before starting the flame act. I've been receptive of any reimagining that exercises enough care to pique my interest. However, with your permission, I'll reserve the right to express my preferences.

Didn't mean to imply you had. But others on this and other boards have. Unrepentantly.

There are just so many more important things in this world to get one's panties in a twist over. Global warming? Starvation? Energy problems? Wars? Man's inhumanity to man?

We could all use a shift in priorities. It's just a movie. They're all just movies and tv shows. Sometimes I think we forget that.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with taking this seriously, we can take entertainment seriously without loosing perspective. As a matter of fact, pretty much everyone does, even the most rabid fan.

I love any chance to pull out the list of how to argue badly from grenades.com:

9. “There are far more important things to worry about.” Pow! Knockout punch! The beauty of this argument is that it is irrefutably true. It’s like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs got together with the Kübler-Ross model of grief to create a leaderboard of tragedy and loss. Worried about how your kid is doing in school? Worry that your kid is on drugs! Saddened by Katrina? Think of the people who died in the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. Pull this argument out when people are discussing pop culture such as movies or comic books with any seriousness. Who cares that, carried to its logical conclusion, the argument means you should never worry about anything except the hypothetical #1 important worry of all time?

 

[therealfoxbat]

Sorry, that's not escaping atmosphere. I've seen the trailer that shot comes from, and THEY'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING IT ON THE GROUND!!

NO JOKE!!!

The other thing I don't understand is the registry number. Shouldn't the paint job be the LAST thing they do...?

 

[largo]

why not build it on the ground? there are lots of compelling reasons to build stuff on the ground. i mean, if its going to take the stresses of going from zero to full impulse in the time it takes to say it, 1g should be no big thing.

 

[therealfoxbat]

The stress of the assembled ship flying from the ground to orbit is no big thing.

Agreed.

The big thing is the stress on the partially assembled framework. Something shaped like the Enterprise would collapse under its own weight during construction without some really serious bracing and scaffolding, which would probably account for three-fourths of the resources devoted to building it.

What would logically happen is something akin to what real-world naval shipyards do. They construct a pre-fabricated section of a ship (called a superlift) which is then moved by a massive crane from the construction yard to the drydock and installed on the ship assembly. In a similar manner, a pre-fabricated section of the Enterprise (say, a pizza-slice of the saucer hull) would be constructed on the ground and then lifted up to orbit to be installed on the ship assembly. Come to think of it, that's pretty much how the International Space Station is being built right now...

 

[therealfoxbat]

It sure looks like the whole ship is being built on Earth. If the partially-built warp nacelles are in position behind the partially-built saucer hull, that means the saucer hull is connected to the neck, which is connected to the lower hull, which is connected to the pylons, which is connected to the warp nacelles...

According to what I'm hearing here and over at TrekMovie, the Big E's being built on earth. Nothing to say that the major components were not built on the ground and then hauled up into space for final assembly.

The render is awsome and it looks like the still was from the very end of the trailer during the pullback/reveil. Looks like they're vamping on the TMP version of the ship over the 60's TV version. As I said in the other thread, this looks a good deal like Gabe's version of the Big E, right down to the warp engines. I'm liking what I see so far but,..... I need more pictures!

Q2UnME

 

[therealfoxbat]

I believe the bridge is lower. It's hard to tell from this angle, but I think the bridge section has more in common with the one from Star Trek Enterprise than it does with the one from TOS.

The bridge section from Star Trek Enterprise is a single-deck assembly with a small instrument dome on top of it, while the bridge section from TOS is a bridge dome on top of a two-deck dome on top of the saucer hull. It looks to me like this bridge section is two decks high with a small instrument dome on top, which would make it a hybrid of Star Trek Enterprise and TOS.

Hard to judge the ship, seeing how it seems to be in heavy fog and we can only see the top-front in extreme close-up. Still, it looks pretty good: TOS nacelles, similar font, no TMP phaser banks, no self-illumination (that we can see). The top is a bit different, but nowhere near a total redesign. Either the ship is scaled bigger than the original ~1000 ft estimate, or the bridge is lower in the hull.

Keep in mind that this image was made a while ago. The design may not be 100% the same as what shows up in the film. The font could be a place-holder, for example. (Not that it would bother me if it weren't).

 

[therealfoxbat]

The open hull plates would indeed be needed for moving bulky stuff into the hull because bulky stuff is bulky. There is a definite limit to the size and mass of objects that a transporter can handle. (If not, then they would be able to store the molecular pattern of the whole ship in a computer somewhere and just beam it into existence whenever they needed one...)

Dunno. It looks to me like the interior is somewhat there despite the outter-shell still being underconstruction.

And I still take issue with the registration "decal" being placed before the outerhull is finished but, I guess, it could not be painted on/a decal put actual part of the material itself.

As for moving bulky stuff into the hull (hence the open hull plates) irrelevant and uneeded in an age of transporters and anti-gravity units.

And don't get me started on constructing it in an atmosphere/surface-side.