# If you were to reimagine the Seaview ...



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

The impressive reimagined Seaview, what might it look like in a movie today.

In the movies and TV show, the Seaview was the Tardis-Under-The-Sea.

In this age, viewers are less tolerant of such license. Therefore, with STTBOS projects in development hells, I was wondering what people thought a new Seaview would look like.

I offer the following:

Something along the lines of a sleekened Typhoon. Much larger than the TV show version. Multiple hulls. Fewer missiles.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I wouldn't change a thing, except for more realistic lighting. Exterior, interior, same. Just tone down the paint colors, color film isn't new anymore! Oh, and no "shaky cam", I like to see what I am watching. To me the only reason to remake something is because it was sucessful the first time. If a producers ego is so big he has to make it his way, then create your own show and call it something else! Just my 2 cents!


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

bigjimslade said:


> The impressive reimagined Seaview, what might it look like in a movie today.
> 
> In the movies and TV show, the Seaview was the Tardis-Under-The-Sea.
> 
> ...


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

see, i`m not digging the seaview 2. i`d go with a modern esque sub with 4 front windows, or heck just have the seaview with panels like a real sub


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I believe you meant to say 'Seaquest DSV'... 

But seriously, if one intends to really re-imagine VttBotS one has to take into account all aspects, and merchandinzing, marketing, tapping the 'geek' fanbase for viral marketing (Toss them a bone! put fins on the bow!) and all those factors do matter.

Taking a current sub class and calling it 'Seaview' just won't do the job, even if you go with the original concept and put a glass observation room aft of the sail. 

Paul's Seaview II looks perfectly fine, altho me being the a** I am I'd suggest a more round profile in that window area, remove the angles on the windows (uneven shapes have uneven pressure tolerances, or so it would seem to me), need dive planes incorporated into the bow flair and those aft fins need to be higher...see? I'm a studio executive now! 

I just wouldn't want to see a movie that spends 7/8 of the time not seeing the Seaview and it only appears near the end of the film...

Oh, content-wise? first season all the way. There's stuff that goes on, the CREW is sent to deal with it and the Seaview is just how they get there. That darn Eastern Alliance!

D'oH! Junglelord's Seaview II. Sorry, sorry. See? I AM an idiot!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I don't think the Seaview needs to be re-imagined.
It is a sleek, smooth craft designed to travel through water.
It looks good, as is.

If the Tardis effect bothers you, the interior sets can be adjusted
to actually fit inside of the sub's dimensions.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Form follows function in the world of submarine design. To design a "new" Seaview we must first set out the criteria to be met, which probably goes something like this: high speed, silent, world-wide range, a mission conformal changeable payload capability, and extreme depth rating.

High speed or extreme high speed (over 100 knots) will demand an extremely hydrodynamic shape which means few if any protrusions from the basic hull mold lines. To achieve really high speeds it may also mean that the ship is equipped with gas generators in the nose which allow the ship to travel inside a bubble of gas (which reduces drag) like a modern torpedo or it may mean that the ship is wrapped inside the coils of a magnetohydrodynamic drive such as the one experimented with in the '60s (and as seen on board the "Red October"). Or the two systems might be combined.

Since the mission capabilities will be partially defined by the Pentagon (the same way that the civilian Space Shuttle payload capability was) the new "Seaview" will be required to perform "stealth" military missions (as was shown in the original series). The Pentagon will want mission flexibility which today means a mission conformable payload bay on board. Perhaps the missile system is contained in a large pod which allows it to be swapped out with one that carries aircraft or small amphibious craft, or ground vehicles, or a large number of combat troops, or a hospital, or sophisticated deployable signals suite (radar etc.). This would have a civilian equivalent in the form of various marine and geologic scientific packages. Perhaps something like the big pod in Thunderbird 2 but for under water operations.

This new ship has a dedicated crew on board which will participate in every mission (and thus carry the highest security clearances) but it will also carry mission specialists who change according to requirements. This will mean that a portion of the available crew quarters and lab space will be empty until and as needed. Because of this excess capacity the ship might appear fairly empty of crew during routine operations

The sub will be able to launch aircraft or hovercraft from a large dorsal hatch located in the appropriate mission pod as well as being able to drive it's bow up onto the beach to put ashore ground vehicles which will drive along the deck from the mission pod to the nose and then down a deployable set of ramps.

The ship will also have a conning tower but this feature will be retractable for high speed submerged operations. All external features will be retractable for the same reason.

With a selection of mission pods available I would think that the "Flying Sub" would no longer be needed. The Seaview would be able to carry a dedicated medium range supersonic aircraft for normal aerial operations (imagine a supersonic "Cod") and the FS bay in the nose could then be given over to a dedicated mini-sub for extreme depth operations and exploration away from the mother ship. Instead of flying, this mini-sub might also be equipped with tracks which would give it the ability to drive up on a beach or ramp thus allowing for more flexibility in operations and making it easier to repair and maintain.

These are some of the basic items which might be considered before sitting down to create a design. Naturally there are many other considerations but I just wanted to throw out some basic ones to see what ideas they might spark here.

Phil


----------



## junglelord (Mar 6, 2007)

Actually the Seaview II is the creation of Dennis Deboer.
I just posted the thread.
:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

junglelord said:


> Actually the Seaview II is the creation of Dennis Deboer.
> I just posted the thread.
> :thumbsup:


Yeah, I saw that as I read the thread, sorry again. But thank you for bringing it to all our attention and so on. 

actually, what's interesting to me, that sub kinda sorta looks how they drew it on some of the old '60s toys, where they tried to work the sub into the logotype itself. 

What goes around comes around!


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Look no further than Deboer's Seaview II Design! Works for me! :thumbsup:

Man I wish that Moebius would buy that design from Dennis! A $400.00 kit is just too expensive for most folks and Moebius could make a smaller version to boot! Just my two cents...


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

HabuHunter32 said:


> Look no further than Deboer's Seaview II Design! Works for me! :thumbsup:


My point in asking was thinking, "That looks nice. What would other people do?"


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

eliminate the fore flat space. If it existed in real life, the bow would snap right off if the ship were to surface in a hurry.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

junglelord said:


> Actually the Seaview II is the creation of Dennis Deboer.
> I just posted the thread.
> :thumbsup:


Thanks for squaring that away...., I assumed the other thread was seen.

Didn't mean to imply the sub was mine:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

How do you make a futuristic design more futuristic????
The exterior of the Sub is a beautifull work of art..Just like the elegant lines of the original TOS Enterprise.

Just my opinion of course, But why reinvent the wheel(or in this case, sub.LOL!).


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Magesblood said:


> eliminate the fore flat space. If it existed in real life, the bow would snap right off if the ship were to surface in a hurry.


Do you mean the manta fins? Without them, it's not the _Seaview_! Anyway, the bow fins on Dennis Deboer's design are much more subtle and blend more smoothly with the main hull shape, like a blended-wing stealth aircraft.

And if the Flying Sub existed in real life . . . well, it COULDN'T. It's science fiction, so it's all a matter of how far you're willing to suspend disbelief.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is one idea I had for an updated/more realistic version of the Seaview:




























I've got another that I'm working on that pretty much covers the roles envisioned by Phil--including a VTOL aircraft bay.:wave:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

That actually looks a lot like the "Vulcan" adversary sub from the series--it's pretty hard to do anything that duplicates the character of the Seaview without the impractical, but beautiful, forward "hammerhead" fins--and if you reduce them a lot it just doesn't say "Seaview" to me. But I love the look of this sub. The Seaview needs some companions!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, the sub pictured above would have made a nice addition to Pacifica's fleet in City Beneath the Sea.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks, jbond & Carson Dyle! It doesn't approach the wild design of the Seaview but it combined several "futuristic" elements I like.


----------

