• 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!

TMP: Director's Edition

Mariner Class said:
ancient said:
I guess I forgot to bring my scale-rule.

...or common sense.

Anyone with half a brain would realize that you can't have two fucking rooms in the same exact location on the ship.

Sure...so what two rooms are you talking about, exactly? And why does it make you so pissy?
 
He's not being pissy, he is just having to explain a mistake (a deliberate one guess) made by the folks who worked on the DE. They generated a virtual camera view based on measurements, and that is what we see with that ugly damned nacelle. But the view is from an already-occupied position (the rec deck), or from a 'stealth' deck suspended in space right above the ship and the rec deck.

If they had just gone for the Probert view on the DE, they'd have had an aesthetically pleasing twin nacelle view, instead of that sore thumb nacelle. But if they were smart enough to do that, then they'd've been smart enough to FIX ALL THOSE COLOR-DEFECTED shots with these guys standing in front of the window, you know, the ones where the uniforms turn from blue to grey.
 
I kinda like the way the PL model suggests where that room is and how it is laid out. May not have been the original idea but I like it.
 
^^^I love you trevanian! You put to words everything I'm thinking about :)

So what we don't agree on Bond, we agree on this :thumbsup:

Keep up the good fight.
 
Ok, if the fudged the angles I can't bring myself to care. Just like I don't care that the Rec-Deck is an 'impossible shaped' room that can't fit in the ship. Close enough. I guess I'm just the sort of person who never notices the matt-painting lines.
 
Aldo said:
^^^I love you trevanian! You put to words everything I'm thinking about :)

So what we don't agree on Bond, we agree on this :thumbsup:

Keep up the good fight.

I guess you must be having an awesome day, given the 'ten more years of Craig' news I read earlier today. I kinda feel like going into hibernation myself, but, like you said, it's good we agree on SOMETHING.
 
ancient said:
Ok, if the fudged the angles I can't bring myself to care. Just like I don't care that the Rec-Deck is an 'impossible shaped' room that can't fit in the ship. Close enough. I guess I'm just the sort of person who never notices the matt-painting lines.

I'm more or less like that. I still can't stand some shots in the DE, though.
 
Actually, the only nacelle thing that bothered me was during the beauty shots in dry dock, when it was looking at the Enterprise straight on from slightly above... it's at 33 seconds at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1_ENMynpI
I'm not sure what it is, but they never looked right. I think the pylon may look bent or curved right at the top. That's my only issue though. Personally, though the DE looked better I thought it was still very slow and boring.
 
archeryguy1701 said:
Actually, the only nacelle thing that bothered me was during the beauty shots in dry dock, when it was looking at the Enterprise straight on from slightly above... it's at 33 seconds at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1_ENMynpI
I'm not sure what it is, but they never looked right. I think the pylon may look bent or curved right at the top. That's my only issue though. Personally, though the DE looked better I thought it was still very slow and boring.

The aspect ratio is messed up in that clip. And what "bend" you're seeing is probably some lens distortion.
 
trevanian said:
If they had just gone for the Probert view on the DE, they'd have had an aesthetically pleasing twin nacelle view, instead of that sore thumb nacelle.

Something that could have looked vaguely like this, had someone been desperate enough to rotomatte a million frames:

1835215658_cc8e0beb59_o.jpg
 
trevanian said:
It is a very selective representation of old boards that they are invoking to say that these are all old unrealized '79 concepts in the DE.

There are boards (and full concept art) showing angles that were not employed in either version, and for the most part they're superior to what was designed or redesigned by the SharpLine folk and Foundation.
Anyone got any?
 
DS9Sega said:
trevanian said:
If they had just gone for the Probert view on the DE, they'd have had an aesthetically pleasing twin nacelle view, instead of that sore thumb nacelle.

Something that could have looked vaguely like this, had someone been desperate enough to rotomatte a million frames:

1835215658_cc8e0beb59_o.jpg
Well, that just looks awesome!
 
elton said:
trevanian said:
It is a very selective representation of old boards that they are invoking to say that these are all old unrealized '79 concepts in the DE.

There are boards (and full concept art) showing angles that were not employed in either version, and for the most part they're superior to what was designed or redesigned by the SharpLine folk and Foundation.
Anyone got any?

TGT used to have links to a particular artist's san frisco and tram art, so if he chimes in here he might still have a link. You can see some of this stuff in old issues of ENTERPRISE INCIDENTS (probably between issues 8 and 17) ... in fact, TGT apparently has a full set of Robert Abel (first fx company) boards, though I don't know if they are in storage or what. I'd commit a decent amount of mayhem to get a gander at them, that's for sure. You can see a somewhat different version of Vulcan in pics of Yuricich in old STARLOGs (same general painting, but different in color and I think missing those goofy big balls in the sky.)
 
DS9Sega, I love that. That's exactly what they should have done - though different angles might have been harder. :)
 
DS9Sega said:
trevanian said:
If they had just gone for the Probert view on the DE, they'd have had an aesthetically pleasing twin nacelle view, instead of that sore thumb nacelle.

Something that could have looked vaguely like this, had someone been desperate enough to rotomatte a million frames:

1835215658_cc8e0beb59_o.jpg

I really like this image. Would have been great to see. I even like the muted lighting in the room.

Mind if I copy the pic to my computer?
 
trevanian said:
elton said:
trevanian said:
It is a very selective representation of old boards that they are invoking to say that these are all old unrealized '79 concepts in the DE.

There are boards (and full concept art) showing angles that were not employed in either version, and for the most part they're superior to what was designed or redesigned by the SharpLine folk and Foundation.
Anyone got any?

TGT used to have links to a particular artist's san frisco and tram art, so if he chimes in here he might still have a link. You can see some of this stuff in old issues of ENTERPRISE INCIDENTS (probably between issues 8 and 17) ... in fact, TGT apparently has a full set of Robert Abel (first fx company) boards, though I don't know if they are in storage or what. I'd commit a decent amount of mayhem to get a gander at them, that's for sure. You can see a somewhat different version of Vulcan in pics of Yuricich in old STARLOGs (same general painting, but different in color and I think missing those goofy big balls in the sky.)

I think this is the one you are talking about --

SF2279AD.jpg


Several years ago I brought that painting to TGT's attention. He had forgotten about it, but when I mentioned that I believed it had ties to Paolo Soleri's work he was fascinated. He became very interested with it, and contacted Povill and Yuricich and Rocco Gioffre among others. You see, Yuricich didn't do those matte paintings alone -- he jobbed some of the work out to others that went uncredited, among them, Gioffre.

TGT talked to some of these people and got all kinds of info on inspirations Roddenberry gave to them -- Walter Dorwin Teague's 1939 diorama of a future San Francisco consolidated pier with the rest of the coast returned to its natural state, a triptych by Hieronymous Bosch titled the "Garden of Earthly Delights," the Planetran subterra intercontinental supersonic subway proposed by Rand Corporation and used as the basis for the tube on the GG Bridge, and so much more. Supposedly Roddenberry recommended Francisco Mujica and Hugh Ferriss' work as examples of Subterra thinking, though I can't trace down anything by them that dealt with underground cities. Antonio Sant'Elia is one of the Futurist architects that he recommended to the matte painters as well.

An amazing amount of thought went into that painting, and the world it represented (and that was further fleshed out in --among other things -- various storyboards from that film that I have in my collection). And it was all tossed aside when it came time to "reimagine" SF for the DE. While I am in agreement with the many technical points you and TGT have raised in the past , it is this minor thing that peeves me the most. It represents such an ignorance of how important and fleshed-out this "utopian" world of Roddenberry was to the man, and to his vision of the culture that was able to send these starships on their way.
 
DS9Sega said:
trevanian said:
If they had just gone for the Probert view on the DE, they'd have had an aesthetically pleasing twin nacelle view, instead of that sore thumb nacelle.

Something that could have looked vaguely like this, had someone been desperate enough to rotomatte a million frames:

1835215658_cc8e0beb59_o.jpg

That really does look great, and is of course the original idea for the setting of this scene.
If you listen to the new audio commentary you will learn that they considered redoing this whole scene like in the above picture.
I hope they can redo it for the 30th anniversarry edition :D
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top