Why did the warp effect get progressively less impressive?

[Gotham Central]

If you watch the Trek films, you cannot help but notice that the warp effect gets less impressive as the movies progress.

TMP starts out by giving us the amazing technicolor warp drive. From there the TOS films give us varying types of colorful streak effects that are steadily simplified over time.

The 24th century is depicted as being fairly consistent with the flash, stretch, bang effect in place for TNG, DS9 and Voyager as well as Generations. Enterprise uses a slight modification with less of a stretch and more of a mild streak with a slow flash at the start and a smaller bang at the end. (likely means to suggest a less powerful engine that what we'll see later)

The TNG movies, however seem to almost abandon most of the effect that was used for the rest of the 24th century. The Engines on the Enterprise E never flash, though there is a slight stretch and the bang is retained. Insurrection and Nemesis get rid of stretch as well...so all we're left with is an image of the ship shooting off into the distance with the bang at the end. Nemesis for some reason even includes what looks like a smoke contrail behind the ship. In some ways the Nemesis effect is almost a precursor of what JJ Trek would use which is essentially no effect at all...just have the ship shoot off into the distance like in Star Wars.

I'm just wondering why the effect gradually gets less interesting over time? I think it gets really noticeable in Nemesis and Insurrection precisely because they were so consistent with in across all of the 24th Century shows...even the slightly modified version used in Enterprise was more interesting than what we ended up with in the last 2 TNG films.

 

[CorporalClegg]

TOS had no warp effect. One was added in TMP to "match up" to Star Wars. Once TPTB released this was silly they continually dialed it back until the other series and ST09 didn't have one.

There's no such thing as a warp effect. TMP's warping is a canon violation.

 

[Shatinator]

TOS had no warp effect. One was added in TMP to "match up" to Star Wars. Once TPTB released this was silly they continually dialed it back until the other series and ST09 didn't have one.

There's no such thing as a warp effect. TMP's warping is a canon violation.

Corporal, you made a number of umm interesting assertions.

While the emphasis in the TMP was on special effects, it has always been my understanding that the Warp Effect was not their for the effect itself but because, as Star Trek was a "science-themed" show and light speed has some observable effects, that the producers wanted to present this.

The effect had changed over time with later productions, perhaps becoming somewhat mundane and regular at times, but has always been their-even going back to the Cage (present as a transparent Warp through the stars, in that case).

 

[Maurice]

The warp drive effect was scaled back for budgetary reasons.

Trumbull wanted to do a slit-photography stretch of the ship for TMP, as was eventually for TNG, but they couldn't get it to work in the time they had, so they went with the streaking (holding the shutter open on each frame as the camera moved). ILM simplified this by using streak artwork instead of doing all the multiple exposure passes necessary to do the TMP type streaking.

By the time TNG came around they revisited the slit-photography trick and were able to stretch the model as planned in TMP.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

TOS had no warp effect. One was added in TMP to "match up" to Star Wars. Once TPTB released this was silly they continually dialed it back until the other series and ST09 didn't have one.

There's no such thing as a warp effect. TMP's warping is a canon violation.

Corporal, you made a number of umm interesting assertions.

While the emphasis in the TMP was on special effects, it has always been my understanding that the Warp Effect was not their for the effect itself but because, as Star Trek was a "science-themed" show and light speed has some observable effects, that the producers wanted to present this.

If this was the case, there would be red/blue-shifting (depending on the angle) as opposed the rainbow lite-brite we got.

 

[Timo]

...And the story indeed goes that they asked a science advisor (Puttkamer?) about how relativistic and hyperrelativistic movement might look like, got their answer (major blueshift and drifting of stars to the front sector, then nothing), and soundly ignored it like most science advice (wisely, or in this case Wisely) is ignored in science fiction.

In-universe, we could easily argue that warp looks TMP-silly only when your warp drive is brand new and poorly tuned. Or that it looks different depending on where the camera is sitting or riding - with the ship, with the ship but outside her warp field, with a "stationary" observer.

Now, what to make of the smoke trails they added for ST:NEM? Did Starfleet never get around to properly repairing the nacelles after the ST:INS damage?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BillJ]

TOS had no warp effect. One was added in TMP to "match up" to Star Wars. Once TPTB released this was silly they continually dialed it back until the other series and ST09 didn't have one.

There's no such thing as a warp effect. TMP's warping is a canon violation.

Star Trek 2009 does have a warp effect.

 

[Christopher]

In some ways the Nemesis effect is almost a precursor of what JJ Trek would use which is essentially no effect at all...just have the ship shoot off into the distance like in Star Wars.

I think the warp entry effect in ST'09 is very impressive... if you watch it in a theater with an excellent sound system. The ships just suddenly snapping into warp with that abrupt, potent clap of sound... it really gave me a sense of speed and power when I first saw (and heard) it in the theater.

(And it's nonsense to say that something within the canon is a "canon violation." Anyone who uses "canon" to mean "uniform continuity" doesn't know what they're talking about. A canon is simply the core body of a serial work as distinct from derivative works. Any ongoing canon will contain changes and retcons over time as its creator(s) refine its ideas. That's not a "violation" of the canon, because no canon is perfectly consistent; it just pretends to be while actually making adjustments as it goes.)

TOS didn't have a warp effect because they couldn't afford one. In the movies and the later shows, they could. (Although there was a warp effect attempted in "The Cage," the bit where they superimposed a flowing starscape over the bridge scene to give the impression that the ship became translucent in warp. It was dropped due to the impracticality of using it on a continuing basis.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

FWIW, I think the goofy streaks of red from the nacelles in STVI was the worst. It looked like the Red Arrows putting on a show, not a spaceship going at impossible velocity.

I also really dislike the scale-defying "streaking stars" of TNG, and the fast-moving warp stars of the early TOS movies (and TOS-R), which are the size of dust motes. STARS ARE ENOURMOUS. It's probably my biggest pet peeve with Trek.

So, obviously, I loved the hyperspace-style "angry zappy blue fields" in-warp effect from STXI. It conveys power and speed really well.

 

[Christopher]

I also really dislike the scale-defying "streaking stars" of TNG, and the fast-moving warp stars of the early TOS movies (and TOS-R), which are the size of dust motes. STARS ARE ENOURMOUS. It's probably my biggest pet peeve with Trek.

Umm, stars are also enormously far apart, which is why they only appear as pinpoints of light in the actual night sky in real life, so I don't see why you'd think it's wrong in Trek. The "scale-defying" isn't in the apparent size of the stars, but in the fact that any movement is visible at all. Warp velocities in the TNG era are reputedly on the order of 1000 light years per year (going by what DS9 and VGR have indicated about travel times from the far side of the galaxy), or about 2.5 light years per day, give or take. The typical distance between stars in this part of the galaxy is 4-5 light years. So realistically, you'd see stars passing by you on the order of one every couple of days, more or less, not several per second. You couldn't actually see the stars moving past with the naked eye; you'd just note their patterns changing from one day to the next.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Unfortuanately, those pinpoint warping "stars" have occasionally moved between the ship and camera, making it very much a scale issue as well.

 

[Christopher]

Unfortuanately, those pinpoint warping "stars" have occasionally moved between the ship and camera, making it very much a scale issue as well.

When did that ever happen?

 

[F. King Daniel]

A few Voyager and Enterprise episodes. In Nemesis, one passes in front of the saucer when the Enterprise is knocked out of warp.

Trek also has a horrible habit of depicting moving microscopic "stars" in sublight scenes - the worst example being the first shot of the Enterprise-D in ENT's "These Are the Voyages"

 

[C.E. Evans]

TOS didn't have a warp effect because they couldn't afford one.

TOS really had the original (if simplest) warp effect in its opening credits--the ship coming out of the starfield and zipping past the screen in a blur. TNG even duplicated this for its opening credits.

 

[Gotham Central]

TOS had no warp effect. One was added in TMP to "match up" to Star Wars. Once TPTB released this was silly they continually dialed it back until the other series and ST09 didn't have one.

There's no such thing as a warp effect. TMP's warping is a canon violation.

Technically this is true, but then again, TOS never showed the ship transition from impulse to warp.

 

[Amaris]

FWIW, I think the goofy streaks of red from the nacelles in STVI was the worst. It looked like the Red Arrows putting on a show, not a spaceship going at impossible velocity.

I also really dislike the scale-defying "streaking stars" of TNG, and the fast-moving warp stars of the early TOS movies (and TOS-R), which are the size of dust motes. STARS ARE ENOURMOUS. It's probably my biggest pet peeve with Trek.

So, obviously, I loved the hyperspace-style "angry zappy blue fields" in-warp effect from STXI. It conveys power and speed really well.

Yeah, I love STXI's in-warp effect. It has this whole "Jesus Christ! We're moving at mind blowing velocities!" thing going for it.

 

[horatio83]

The hyperspace thingy might be visually nice but it prevents any action at warp or the familiar clam looks out of a window.

 

[BillJ]

The hyperspace thingy might be visually nice but it prevents any action at warp or the familiar clam looks out of a window.

Not sure your really losing anything in a series of two-hour movies though.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

.... familiar clam looks out of a window.

While I think this may simply be a typo of "glam", it strikes me as what could be a lost line from "I am the Walrus"!

I was really wowed by the warp effect in TMP when I first saw it, but I don't care for it quite so much now. I do agree with other folks who say that the sound and visuals for the abrupt jump of the ships to warp (and also while in warp) really convey to me the feel of mind-warping speeds. I liked it, but I may eventually go back to preferring the TNG zipping star fields.

I agree that the effect of the stars zipping was needed to convey to the viewer the speeds for dramatic effect, even if they might not be scientifically realistic. I never noticed the mistakes with the stars zipping in front of a ship, but I'll just chalk it up to some film technician not catching the mistake. Not as bad, though, as the Enterprise warping away from the space station near the beginning of "The Ultimate Computer", a scene where the stars are zipping by while the station only leisurely recedes into the distance...

 

[Therin of Andor]

I also really dislike the scale-defying "streaking stars" of TNG, and the fast-moving warp stars of the early TOS movies (and TOS-R), which are the size of dust motes. STARS ARE ENOURMOUS. It's probably my biggest pet peeve with Trek.

Other SF movie franchises do "enormous" stars in their starfields?

When ST II was being created, one of the things the SPFX guys did was use a planetarium's computer to create realistic, accurate starfields. The stars around the moon shown in the Genesis Project simulation are adjusted so as to be correct if viewed from a planet in orbit of Epsilon Indi. Our own sun appears as an extra star in the Big Dipper.