Why does the deflector dish in that shot look like it's taken a facial?
Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
Why does the deflector dish in that shot look like it's taken a facial?
But it's the "pilot design." Which is what we're talking about here.
Nobody is suggesting getting the old 11'er out of the Smithsonian's collection and restoring it to the pilot version state.
There are reasons. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't matter. The new ship is attractive in its own right, and is definitely "Star Trek". I can enjoy both. I prefer the old over any other starship I've ever seen, but that doesn't prevent me from accepting and liking the new one. Besides, I'm sure the old girl will make a comeback someday. If they do a multiple universe/Enterprise scene in this film like the did in TNG, we might even see it on the big screen in a few months. You never know.
As much as I love facials, I don't see it...Why does the deflector dish in that shot look like it's taken a facial?
CBS did laser scans of the 11-foot model in order to build the computer version seen in TOS-R.
The differences between the pilot versions and the regular production version are minor and rather superficial, not to mention very well documented.
What kind of condition is it in, anyway?
I'd like some confirmation on that one. Pretty hard to do a scan of a five-foot diameter saucer.
Out of curiosity, was there ever a Trek ship created which didn't result in a vocal group of people denouncing it and discussing either how predecessors didn't need any changes or how the new ship "wasn't Trek"? The Refit, the D, the E, Defiant, Voyager, Archer's Enterprise...
Wondering whether this is essentially a historical argument...and whether we should be learning from history instead of repeating it...
Wondering whether this is essentially a historical argument...and whether we should be learning from history instead of repeating it...
It's responding to gravity and time like Dolly Parton minus plastic surgery.
Not hard to do at all. It's done all the time. You just need the right facility.
There are plenty of DoD-associated facilities in the greater DC area that can handle that sort of job, as well as much larger objects... and do so on a daily basis.
You can also find 'em throughout the SoCal region, and in Detroit... as well as many other places.
The technology isn't limited by size. You're only limited by the size of the facility.
In that case there is not a reason in the world they have to use it either, as is.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
This doesn't reflect the current/modern design aesthetic.
Sitting here near my desk is a tiny figurine of the TOS Enterprise it's the Hallmark ornament that was released a couple years ago. It sits on a little stand and if you press a button it lights up (supposed to, but this one is broken) and plays the TOS theme.
I sit here looking at this thing looking at a beautiful, iconic, design that is recognisable to any Joe on the street and is loved by near every Trek fan.
I mean, look at it:
That's a beautiful ship!
Would it have been that bad to simply just use this design (The Cage version, of course) for this movie? Why make any drastic changes to it at all? Why not give fans the awe and wonder of seeing this timeless and classic ship on a 50-foot tall screen in all of its movie-level budget glory?
I don't want to hear "it looks too 60s/cheesy." Such comments are judging the ship on its 1960s level special effects. Anyone who's looked at the ship and seen the filming minature in all her glory in the Smithsonian can tell you this ship is a BEAUTY and would've looked glorious on screen.
Abrahms could've taken "some" liberty with her, sure. Maybe give the hull a bit more texture/"aztecking", made the interiror grills of the engines glow dimly blue, different effect inside the nacelles showing the "energies" inisde.
But to take this timeless and classic design, strip her down to the barest of components and to make a that mess that he made is just a smack in the face to all of us and, frankly, is pandering to the "base" by trying to just make a radical design that'll have people drooling over sleek lines and curves and Jetsonian modernish design rather than respecting a classic.
The talents of many of our 3D artists over in Trek Art time and time again have shown what this ship can look like with some "modern inspiration" and talent and hard work in a 3D program.
Hell, Gabe Koerner's Enterprise would've been a welcome version compared to what we're getting.
But, in the end, I think seeing the *real* Enterprise in all her glory from the Original Series would've been, well...
It would've brought a tear to me eye.
I agree with everything above. This "new Star trek" is not Star Trek. It's Fresh Prince meets Plan Nine from Outer space. Abrahms has raped our childhoods and trashed an American icon. Nay a world wide cherished icon.
I morn for what was, and shudder at what will be.
Last edited:
No we're not. Trek stalled because the "fanbase" was leaving in droves.
"I'm rubber and you're glue," huh?
That's nonsense. There IS a reason. You may not think it's a strong-enough reason, but it's there.
The reason given by people in favor of the change is that "the ship would be rejected by modern audiences." This is a totally unproven (and so far unprovable) hypothesis. For most audience members, they'd never notice the difference between the versions at all. These same people never noticed the difference between the TOS and TMP versions, either. And that's just fine.
My opinion on this? I think that the claim that "the ship design is old and would be rejected" is simply a made-up EXCUSE, and has no factual basis whatsoever.
Now, on the other hand... since you're playing the "toss the argument right back in their face" game... there's the argument given by the people who are NOT in favor of the change. This is that "the original ship is recognized by a significant portion of the audience, and changing it makes it clear that this isn't supposed to fit with the reality that many (though certainly not "all" and likely not even "most") audience members are familiar with.
I gave an example a few days back about doing a WWII movie but using stock footage of the F-35 in place of P-38s. It might not affect the storytelling, and many audience members might not recognize that it's "wrong" (hey, it's a fighter plane, that's all that matters!). But for those who are familiar with the setting, it would ruin their ability to suspend their disbelief and fully enjoy the film.
That's the downside to the changes. Some members of the audience will notice the changes and will be less able to enjoy the film as a result. Meanwhile... if the changes were not made, there's no indication that those who don't know or care about those aspects will like or dislike the flick more on that basis, is there?
A change that does harm... even if only from the perspective of a subset of the total audience... and which does nothing to draw in a new audience... is a BAD CHANGE.
So... explain to me how the changes will draw in new audience members? How having a new Enterprise configuration, as opposed to the original one, is going to make non-fans stream into the theaters and become rabid "new fans?"
My "design aesthetic" is completely current and modern. And that fits my design aesthetic perfectly.
On the other hand, the "new" version does not. It reflects a combination of 1950s automobile design, 1960s "Gerry Anderson supermarionation" design, and mid-1970s "white/clean" design. All of which, as far as I'm concerned, are totally dated and passe'.
See, "aesthetics" are simply "personal tastes." But mechanical design isn't... it's about "function."
The curving fender-vents from a 1950s automobile we see on the new nacelles... hard to see any "function" in those. Those are there purely for "style." And their style is firmly rooted in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
Or how about....these guys wanted to tell a Star Trek story, had a huge budget and wanted to tell the story they had in mind. Wanted to sell their interpretation of it. It's a tv show being interpreted as a movie. Not historial events being documented. The way some of you people have been talking, it's like the events of TOS really happened. it's a FICTIONAL SHOW!
- Status
Similar threads
