Actually, I think a lot of the set design from TOS was given its due in the "Enterprise" mirror universe episodes. I just watched them yesterday, and seeing that bridge in wide-screen for the first time, carefully (if somewhat under) litm, with substantially more animated displays than the original and more persuasive matte work on the main viewscreen, etc was pretty damn cool.
Why NOT update the designs?
- Thread starter J47
- Start date
I thought the Defiant looked fine in IAMD. Of course, that was TV, so even if they made that exact same design in the movie it would look different.
That being said, there is *plenty* that can be done with the TOS design that will bring it in line with modern EFX techniques, without violating a stitch of canon:
- Make those overhead viewscreens actually functional. IAMD did a bit of this.
- Have the control consoles actually show meaningful info on their displays as well. I don't remember TOS ever doing this.
- Ditto for that thing in between the helm and navigation stations.
- Certain things, like that display in engineering which looked like a mutant LiteBrite, could be made 'real'. Have them so if you just panned across them, they'd look like they did in TOS, but when you get up close, have them actually show something.
That being said, there is *plenty* that can be done with the TOS design that will bring it in line with modern EFX techniques, without violating a stitch of canon:
- Make those overhead viewscreens actually functional. IAMD did a bit of this.
- Have the control consoles actually show meaningful info on their displays as well. I don't remember TOS ever doing this.
- Ditto for that thing in between the helm and navigation stations.
- Certain things, like that display in engineering which looked like a mutant LiteBrite, could be made 'real'. Have them so if you just panned across them, they'd look like they did in TOS, but when you get up close, have them actually show something.
I actually liked the bridge design in TAS the best even with a white center seat. and in the next phase - their designs too. All modern day trek creators thought TOS was hokey and outdated so they gave us the NX-01 AKA 'the submarine' where people including the Captain bump their heads. I would like a small bridge please with an open feeling plain and simple with no gadgetry and gook on the walls like in TMP for no reason.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defbridge2.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defbridge3.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defbridge4.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/def1.jpg
images changed to links- they stretched the page KM
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defbridge3.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defbridge4.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/def1.jpg
images changed to links- they stretched the page KM
You're right when you say it might. When you can hop into your time machine and bring back a photo that says otherwise, we'll talk.
In the meantime, the photos you posted of the Bridge from Enterprise look great. Very futuristic in that it resembles nothing we have today...which is as it should be. And all that gorgeous color, are you kidding, these kids today with their lit cel phones and pcs and cars modded with LED's and cathode tubes will eat that stuff up!
Ramp up the contruction techniques to withstand the scrutiny of the big screen but that's all. I think the TOS design stood up to the scrutiny of HD television just fine in those pics above.
I honestly don't understand why they didn't just paint the IaMD set blue to begin with.
The original setup from Tholian Web used blue lighting for mood not color. Even with this non-remastered clip, it's apparent what a difference that makes.
Cue blind rants.
The difference is that the IAMD set looks better than the original Defiant bridge. It's better lit and photographed - somewhat better constructed in detail, as well.
This model is interesting. It is meant to be something between TOS and TMP, but I can imagine a similar detailing for a pre-TOS version of the ship, that maintains the overall shape, exposes certain details on the theory they were concealed behind panels during the 5YM to better protect them, and swaps the nacelles for something more-primitive:
http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/ussenterprise.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1142
http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/ussenterprise.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1142
However the changes made are not that huge. And the fact it's lit differently, etc ... well, if you watch Doctor Who the TARDIS console room changes appearance from episode to episode because the series has 2 different directors of photography, each with his own style. They don't make wholesale changes.
Those IAMD screen captures (which are beautiful, by the way) show that the bridge and ship designs don't need to be completely overhauled in order to work in a 21st Century production. In fact it'll look beautiful if these images are anything to go by - and that's just for television.
And as long as Abrams and company insist that this prequel is part of the canon, then they simply can't make big changes and expect to retain visual continuity with not only TOS, but also Trials and Tribbleations on DS9, IAMD on Enterprise, TNG's Relics , etc.
I mean, let's face it, as critical as I am towards the remastering of TOS, one thing I've noticed with approval is they haven't made major changes to the NCC-1701's appearance, inside or out. If they were going to redo the Enterprise, then they would have probably redone the look of the ship already in TOS Remastered, yes?
If Abrams finally comes clean and says its a reimagining, or if the rumored plot is true and a redesign is due to other factors, then it'll be accepted. But if they just make it different for the sake of updating, it's going to be rejected, no matter how well done and updated it is. And Trek XI will become just another movie-based-on-an-old-TV-show that failed to recapture the magic of the original.
Cheers!
Alex
I'd love to see spruced-up versions of the original TOS designs in the movie - unlike a lot of people, in fact, I'd be happy to see more detailed and retailored versions of the original series uniforms in the exact same bright colors as always.
That, however, is not what we are going to get. Everything will be substantially different while incorporating nods to the original designs.
They have carte blanche to change the *uniforms*, at least. They can always say that there are just a lot of different uniform styles in use. That's how it is in the US Navy, for example (AFAIK, a ship's captain will designate the "uniform of the day").
Interesting topic... but one that follows a major flaw in many science fiction productions.
In the real world of technology, as things get more advanced they become more streamlined and less cluttered... but not in Star Trek. What we see in Star Trek is that as the years have progressed since the original series, effects artist have moved towards adding more "detail" (which actually means more clutter), to the outside of the starships.
A great real world example of how this is actually backwards is submarine design. A World War II era submarine has tons of stuff all over it. You've got large railings, guns, visible doors for torpedos, etc. A very cluttered look, which by SciFi standards makes it ultramodern. Compare and contrast this with submarines of today, nearly featureless, from any distance the doors for missiles and torpedoes are almost invisible.
People asking to see the TOS Enterprise with visible phaser emitters, torpedo tubes and other surface clutter are actually saying that what was (and still is) one of the best designs in SciFi needs to be less futuristic (as if we, 40 years later, are actually all that much closer to the 23rd century than the designers back then). The original Enterprise is by far the most futuristic and most advanced of all ships in Star Trek. Every ship design since has been moving closer and closer to our unfuturistic present comprehension of technology.
Now, if that is what you want... a story from a few hundred years from now that doesn't challenge our current understanding of technology, then Trek since TOS has absolutely lived down to those standards.
And this isn't to say that the production artist back then weren't making the same mistakes. The hand lasers of The Cage didn't have enough "detail" so they slapped stuff on them before Where No Man Has Gone Before. Similarly, the station monitors on the bridge in The Cage were large flat black panels on which information would appear. But by series production these had been replaced with fixed screens that were shaped like CRTs (a massive step backwards in technology).
Another great example of this same type of backwards thinking was done in the movie 2010. The flat displays on the Discovery in 2001 were replaced with CRT displays in 2010, but anyone who has followed our own space program knows that three CRT displays originally built into the Space Shuttle cockpits were later replaced (along with a lot of other instruments) with nine LCD displays that function remarkably like the displays from 2001. But the guys working on 2010 back in the 80's thought they had a much better view of how technology of the early 21st century would look than the people of the late 60's.
As far as I'm concerned, making a new Star Trek today based on TOS should take what they had in TOS and unclutter much of it to get it back to some of the sleeker designs of The Cage. Now that would truly start to challenge people's preconceived notions of what the future would be like.
The future is now... but it shouldn't be when working in Science Fiction!
In the real world of technology, as things get more advanced they become more streamlined and less cluttered... but not in Star Trek. What we see in Star Trek is that as the years have progressed since the original series, effects artist have moved towards adding more "detail" (which actually means more clutter), to the outside of the starships.
A great real world example of how this is actually backwards is submarine design. A World War II era submarine has tons of stuff all over it. You've got large railings, guns, visible doors for torpedos, etc. A very cluttered look, which by SciFi standards makes it ultramodern. Compare and contrast this with submarines of today, nearly featureless, from any distance the doors for missiles and torpedoes are almost invisible.
People asking to see the TOS Enterprise with visible phaser emitters, torpedo tubes and other surface clutter are actually saying that what was (and still is) one of the best designs in SciFi needs to be less futuristic (as if we, 40 years later, are actually all that much closer to the 23rd century than the designers back then). The original Enterprise is by far the most futuristic and most advanced of all ships in Star Trek. Every ship design since has been moving closer and closer to our unfuturistic present comprehension of technology.
Now, if that is what you want... a story from a few hundred years from now that doesn't challenge our current understanding of technology, then Trek since TOS has absolutely lived down to those standards.
And this isn't to say that the production artist back then weren't making the same mistakes. The hand lasers of The Cage didn't have enough "detail" so they slapped stuff on them before Where No Man Has Gone Before. Similarly, the station monitors on the bridge in The Cage were large flat black panels on which information would appear. But by series production these had been replaced with fixed screens that were shaped like CRTs (a massive step backwards in technology).
Another great example of this same type of backwards thinking was done in the movie 2010. The flat displays on the Discovery in 2001 were replaced with CRT displays in 2010, but anyone who has followed our own space program knows that three CRT displays originally built into the Space Shuttle cockpits were later replaced (along with a lot of other instruments) with nine LCD displays that function remarkably like the displays from 2001. But the guys working on 2010 back in the 80's thought they had a much better view of how technology of the early 21st century would look than the people of the late 60's.
As far as I'm concerned, making a new Star Trek today based on TOS should take what they had in TOS and unclutter much of it to get it back to some of the sleeker designs of The Cage. Now that would truly start to challenge people's preconceived notions of what the future would be like.
The future is now... but it shouldn't be when working in Science Fiction!
Submarines have become more streamlined and less cluttered with extraneous detail because it allows them to move through the water more easily and with less noise. You really can't apply that rationale to a vessel that spends all its time in the vacuum of space.
Personally, I have no problem with added detail as long as it serves a function, or at least adds to the design aesthetically. I always tended to think the simplicity of the TOS Enterprise was more utilitarian than artistic. It was made out of simple, streamlined shapes because such components were easier to build with the technology available at the time. Later, as humans became more proficient at building starships, they could afford to become more extravagant as opposed to strictly functional.
In other words, with sufficient advancement, starships could look pretty much like anything their builders could imagine. Simpler and more streamlined does not automatically equate to more advanced.
Personally, I have no problem with added detail as long as it serves a function, or at least adds to the design aesthetically. I always tended to think the simplicity of the TOS Enterprise was more utilitarian than artistic. It was made out of simple, streamlined shapes because such components were easier to build with the technology available at the time. Later, as humans became more proficient at building starships, they could afford to become more extravagant as opposed to strictly functional.
In other words, with sufficient advancement, starships could look pretty much like anything their builders could imagine. Simpler and more streamlined does not automatically equate to more advanced.
Actually, submarines and their environment are the closest things to the Enterprise and it's environment we currently have today. The lack of external detail on submarines has been adopted for the same rationale as was originally given for the Enterprise's lack of external details...
- Walter Jefferies:
"I still wanted an absolutely plain exterior. Anything that man makes is going to break down; why put him outside in the worst possible environment when you can put him on the inside?"
So the idea of going outside to service something on the Enterprise while on duty in deep space is about as likely as members of a submarine crew going outside to service something while on patrol. US submarines of today rarely surface and can stay submerged for months on end, where as World War II subs spent a great deal of time on the surface (a much nicer environment for fixing things).
If that's your best defense of that position, I think we've talked enough.
This is true.
BTW, Jefferies' own account of how he came up with the registry number is interesting:
Jefferies interview
Similar threads
