# Sneak Peak of Shuttlecraft from New Trek Film



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

Link is gone...sorry!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Looks like Paramount got to it first and removed it, dead image link.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Maybe here?

http://io9.com/372497/forbidden-images-of-star-treks-shuttlecraft

It looks kinda cheesy though. Bogus?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

That's "Pike's Shuttle", aka the "Starfleet Military Transport."










Looks cheesy to me too.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I miss the original shuttlecraft


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yikes... that looks awful!


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Look at the size of that allen bolt on the side of the nacelle!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I've lost count of how many shuttlecraft have been designed for this franchise. 

I do know I've liked exactly two of them:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

REL said:


> Look at the size of that allen bolt on the side of the nacelle!


Funny, I first thought you wrote "alien bolt". 

Well, maybe it's a quick release for the engine, er, thing. :freak:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> That's "Pike's Shuttle", aka the "Starfleet Military Transport."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gadzooks! Are they serious with that butt-ugly thing? Looks like some kind of clunky armored war vehicle from one of those cheapo ’80s post-apocalyptic action flicks.

[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=61707&stc=1&d=1214360486[/IMG-LEFT]
Now, THAT'S what I call a shuttlecraft! Obviously inspired by the look of modern Mediterranean motor yachts.

All that's missing are a couple of bikini-clad Eurobabes sunning themselves on the top deck. . .


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Mmmmm, starfleet's bikini-clad Eurobabes. :woohoo: I'd buy that calendar.


----------



## Old_McDonald (Jul 5, 2002)

lunadude said:


> Mmmmm, starfleet's bikini-clad Eurobabes. :woohoo: I'd buy that calendar.


Hmmm. now you guys got me thinking of those green orion slave girls. Gotta get thru this day....:freak:


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

some people are never happy. got to pick everything to pieces
sheesh


----------



## Poseidon (Aug 30, 2004)

> Originally Posted by REL
> Look at the size of that allen bolt on the side of the nacelle!


Maybe it's not an Allen Bolt; maybe _that's_ a Self-sealing Stem Bolt!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

lunadude said:


> Mmmmm, starfleet's bikini-clad Eurobabes. :woohoo: I'd buy that calendar.


Well, they're not sporting bikinis, and I believe they're from Australia, but they'll do in a pinch...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

The pictures that snuck out of the full sized Jabba's barge looked like garbage too, but it looked OK on film. 

And I like it better than the phoney-looking shuttles they used on TNG the first few seasons till the "bar of soap" design showed up.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Yeah, I'm not all that appalled by it. I liked the shuttles in Trek III actually even though they were obviously kitbashed from F-16 fuselages--where's the 1/72 kit of that?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

If you think that Shuttlecraft is "hot", just wait until you see the rest of the "art direction".

Where's the "Fabreeze" (holding nose)...


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

I like....looks like a bit of the new BSG.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, they're not sporting bikinis, and I believe they're from Australia, but they'll do in a pinch . . .


Well, they look pretty good in those TOS miniskirt uniforms. The Andorian babe is really cute.

You know what they say: Once you've had blue, nothing else will do! :devil:


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> That's "Pike's Shuttle", aka the "Starfleet Military Transport," and it is indeed from the upcoming film.
> 
> This is the shuttle that transports Kirk, McCoy, Uhura, etc. from the Academy to their first assignment aboard the _Enterprise_.
> 
> And yeah, it looks cheesy to me too.


That militaristic box is the 'new' style shuttle?

Looks like another war movie disguised as SF to me - I've been sitting on the fence on this one, but the more I hear and see about, the more I'm inclined to stay home and skip this...... thing


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

The should just title the movie Star Trek: The Final Nail


----------



## hackercat13 (Apr 15, 2008)

I know that's a tall woman, but look at the freakishly large hands on the Andorian! Other one is smokin' hot though!:thumbsup:


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Why is everyone bashing this movie because they don't like the shuttle design.

Nimoy signed off on it and he knows quality when it comes to Star Trek.

I mean you realize how it all sounds right..."I don't like that shuttle craft so the whole movie is going to blow and I'm going to stay home and pout about it."

The franchise doesn't need fans like that....just stand aside while Trek becomes something big again.

If you really appreciated what Trek is about a shuttle design shouldn't matter.

It's a freakin shuttle!

Besides the old shuttle from the 60's looks like it's from the 1960's.....It doesn't look futuristic to anyone outside of the HARD CORE "Purists"...or whiners as I call them. It would be laughed off the screen....

Bottom line is that this change is good for the franchise and good for the public...Star Trek will be relevant again.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

hackercat13 said:


> I know that's a tall woman, but look at the freakishly large hands on the Andorian! Other one is smokin' hot though!:thumbsup:


Funny, I wasn't really paying that much attention to her hands. But now that you mention it, she does sort of have man-hands.

So, she's probably good at giving massages, right?  


newbie dooby said:


> . . . Besides the old shuttle from the 60's looks like it's from the 1960's.....It doesn't look futuristic to anyone outside of the HARD CORE "Purists"...or whiners as I call them. It would be laughed off the screen....


The boxy-yet-sleek shape of the TOS shuttlecraft may have been dictated by schedule and budget limitations, but the result was a timeless, classic design, IMHO. As Zefram Cochrane said in "Metamorphosis," it's simple and clean! (Which, coincidentally, is how I like my women.)

That abomination that's supposed to be Captain Pike's shuttle looks, if anything, MORE dated than the original. Not to mention _*UGLY UGLY UGLY!*_


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Look...even the guys who made the first movie knew that they needed to update all the sets, the ships, and the shuttles. Even in the late 70's the designs from the original series were dated.

Timeless and classic...to who? Sure a hard core purist maybe....but not the type of people the movie needs to attract.


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

Hey Trek fans, want some cheese with that whine?????????. Is it any wonder Star Trek shriveled up and died? IT IS A BETTER LOOKING SHUTTLE THAN THE ORIGINAL! It is the beggining of Star fleet for crying out loud!!!!!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Well, _chacun à son goût_, as I always say.

(Actually, this is the first time I've said it today.)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

More sensible vehicles appeared in "Commando Cody". 

I cannot believe that there are actually people on this board who like that new POS, this is a perfect example of why people look down on "Trek" fans. That so-called "Shuttlecraft" is just a slightly warmed-over copy of the robot delivery van from "Sleeper" for G*ds sake. Don't you guys even know when the people in Hollywood are making fun of you?? Wake up!

For some reason they have gotten the idea that Trek fans are so stupid that they will simply like any POS as long as it says "Star Trek" on it. So easy, no work required. Build a box, put a stripe and some numbers on it and call it a "spaceship". That worked for me when I was 8 but not anymore. When some studio spends millions of dollars, I expect to see something that they put some effort into. Instead, we get something that is truly embarrassing and who knows where the money went because it sure as heck didn't go to the Art Department.

Yeah, that ship is just one piece of this film but it does show the level of effort that they are putting into it. Far less than loyal fans deserve.

End of rant.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

This is an interesting discussion.

I see parallels in the comparisons to the art design of Darth Vader in the original trilogy movies versus the Darth Vader as he is presented in the most recent of the prequels, Episode III. Most of the older original trilogy fans think the Episode III Vader looks, well, awful. I must be weird or something; while I think the original Vader looks like a big mean SOB, I also like the Episiode III Vader. To me he looks younger, more machine-like and much more meanacing.

On Star Trek, I'm willing to give it a chance. I understand that folks have a natural affinity for the designs they have known for years, whether it be Star Trek or Star Wars. And X-15-A2: I really respect your opinion on things. So while I don't want to pre-judge the entire venture by one prop, your comments do give rise to some concern about the rest of the movie.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Although X-15 and I share a similar opinion with regard to the design merits of the shuttle in question (or lack thereof), I'll happily admit that this is the LEAST of the problems facing the next _Trek_ film.

Clearly this subject (_Trek_) is prone to passionate debate around these parts, and I think that's great. All I ask is that you continue to limit any negative comments to the subject at hand, and refrain from issuing remarks of a personal nature. 

Feel free to speak your mind, but please remember you're discussing a MOVIE. None of the opinions voiced here re: _Trek_ should be taken personally.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

And if anyone does not heed that, I will promptly eat a caesar salad, some garlic and zesty cheese nacho chips, and put on my Darth Vader costume and breathe on you.

If that doesn't scare the bejeepers out of you nothing will. Talk about the power of the dark side.:freak::drunk:

Huzz:thumbsup:
Rely on me to say something dumb when you least expect it!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

What's more likely: that people look down on Star Trek fans because they think Star Trek has silly-looking shuttlecraft? 

Or that Star Trek fans will insult each other and practically come to blows over the design of a shuttlecraft?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

> Star Trek: The Final Nail!!!!



I LOVE IT!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm just amazed we haven't yet had "that no-talent JJ Abrams is raping Star Trek" post yet. Kinda like some of the doom & gloom fanboys were railing about the BSG remake a few years ago.

I've enjoyed every feature Abrams has done so far, he's a talented guy, and it seems reasonable to wait till someone see's the frakkin' movie before proclaiming how badly and totally it's gonna suck. Especially based on one crappy low-quality picture of a full sized mock-up.

Abrams managed to get a good performance out of Tom Cruise, if he can do _that_ making a shuttlecraft look good should be a piece of frakkin' cake.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I'll reserve my opinion until I see the film. But I agree that the shuttle isn't inspiring, or inspired. It sort of "Vogon" more than Starfleet. and the connection to "Sleeper" is dead-on! Ah well. I hope the story-telling is better than this "sneak peak".


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

This ridiculous....I'm deleting my account. Too much moaning and groaning over something that is not real.

I love Trek and always will but for someone to get their panties (and yes they do wear panties) in a bunch over this....that tells me they really do not understand what Star Trek is about.

And that covers pretty much everyone who is bashing the new design.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

newbie dooby said:


> This ridiculous....I'm deleting my account. Too much moaning and groaning over something that is not real.
> 
> I love Trek and always will but for someone to get their panties (and yes they do wear panties) in a bunch over this....that tells me they really do not understand what Star Trek is about.
> 
> And that covers pretty much everyone who is bashing the new design.


Who's getting their panties in a bunch? I mean, why would you feel the need to delete your account just because someone disagrees with you over a shuttle design? 

Do what you have to do, but I submit you're the one who's being "ridiculous."

Let me say it again: ALL OPINIONS WILL BE TOLERATED AND RESPECTED ON THIS FORUM. What will not be tolerated are attacks of a personal nature. If you don't think you can handle those guidelines please feel free to leave.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

scotpens said:


> Well, they look pretty good in those TOS miniskirt uniforms. The Andorian babe is really cute. You know what they say: Once you've had blue, nothing else will do! :devil:


Well if these are extras from the new film, maybe its a good sign they are using TOS phasers, communicators, and tricoders!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

newbie dooby said:


> I love Trek and always will but for someone to get their panties (and yes they do wear panties) in a bunch over this....that tells me they really do not understand what Star Trek is about.


PANTIES?? You insult my manhood and my honor, sir.

NOTHING comes between me and my Calvins!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well if these are extras from the new film, maybe its a good sign they are using TOS phasers, communicators, and tricoders!


The young ladies pictured upthread are not from the T-XI, but I can confirm the new female duty uniform is appropriately short, and the actress who plays Uhura has terrific legs. Not as terrific as scotpens' maybe, but quite fetching nonetheless.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

newbie dooby said:


> This ridiculous....I'm deleting my account. Too much moaning and groaning over something that is not real.
> 
> I love Trek and always will but for someone to get their panties (and yes they do wear panties) in a bunch over this....that tells me they really do not understand what Star Trek is about.
> 
> And that covers pretty much everyone who is bashing the new design.


Hey, I love Trek as well, but I certainly am not pleased with what I am seeing. You said this new shuttle design looks better than the original. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect our differences, you should give those of us who do not like it the same consideration.

I think it looks like something a kid made out of Lego's. Boxy, clunky and the engines mounted on the top look exactly like what one would expect from cheap sci-fi that has had no original thinking put into it.


The story can be the best one written in decades, but as I am sitting there in the theater I'll be doing nothing but thinking how........wrong..... these ships look and it would take away any enjoyment from the story I would get.

I've said before that I look at "Enterprise" as 'Trek-Like' but not true Trek because of the unforgivable errors they made in ignoring/retconning certain elements. I'm sad to report that this movie will most likely be rated even lower than that.

That's my opinion.......


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

newbie dooby said:


> This ridiculous....I'm deleting my account. Too much moaning and groaning over something that is not real.
> 
> I love Trek and always will but for someone to get their panties (and yes they do wear panties) in a bunch over this....that tells me they really do not understand what Star Trek is about.
> 
> And that covers pretty much everyone who is bashing the new design.




You couldn't be more incorrect.

And don't let the door hit you on the way out... :wave:


----------



## hackercat13 (Apr 15, 2008)

Wow did this touch off a big poop storm! Ya know, it wouldn't be out of character at all for Abrams to put false teasers out there to mess with everyone!

But seriously folks, I love Trek as much as the next guy, have every series on dvd, went to Star Trek experience while on my honeymoon, and much more geekiness. At the end of the day, it is MAKE BELIEVE! I can't believe people are getting so bent over a new movie. 

Someone PLEASE post a link to Shatner's "Get a life!" rant on SNL.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hackercat13 said:


> Someone PLEASE post a link to Shatner's "Get a life!" rant on SNL.


Yeah, it's worse than a bunch of sports fans arguing over a bad call. 

Guys like to argue over trivial things. It's what we do. As long as the debate is carried out in a civil manner I have no problem with it.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

hackercat13 said:


> Wow did this touch off a big poop storm! Ya know, it wouldn't be out of character at all for Abrams to put false teasers out there to mess with everyone!
> 
> But seriously folks, I love Trek as much as the next guy, have every series on dvd, went to Star Trek experience while on my honeymoon, and much more geekiness. At the end of the day, it is MAKE BELIEVE! I can't believe people are getting so bent over a new movie.
> 
> Someone PLEASE post a link to Shatner's "Get a life!" rant on SNL.


Are you kidding? DON'T YOU REALIZE JJ ABRAMS MADE THAT SHUTTLE LOOK LIKE THE SLEEPERMOBILE TO SAY FRAK YOU TO STAR TREK FANS?! 

Plus, I also have it on good authority it's solar powered and is named the _Michael Moore_.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> The young ladies pictured upthread are not from the T-XI, but I can confirm the new female duty uniform is appropriately short, and the actress who plays Uhura has terrific legs.


Zoe Saldana DOES have some nice legs -- at least that's one point I think we can all agree on.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


>


Tease!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Here's a sneak peak at the new communicator design:












Oh, the inhumanity!


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Here's a sneak peak at the new communicator design:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's all wrong!!! It doesn't even flip open!  :thumbsup:


----------



## Thunderizer (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm not a GREAT fan of Star Trek, but I know what I like and this looks butt-ugly. At first glance it looked like something off the old Buck Rogers TV series.
No, not the B&W ones, the one with Twiki (groan).

Of course it may be a decoy, but it sure looks as if some money has been spent on it (just not very much).

Let's wait for the film before getting uptight. Hey there may even be a story in there as well as special effects!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> It's all wrong!!! It doesn't even flip open!  :thumbsup:


Although the first "brick" portable phone designer was inspired by the Communicators on TOS but could only come up with this using the technology available at the time...


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I'm just amazed we haven't yet had "that no-talent JJ Abrams is raping Star Trek" post yet. Kinda like some of the doom & gloom fanboys were railing about the BSG remake a few years ago.
> 
> I've enjoyed every feature Abrams has done so far, he's a talented guy, and it seems reasonable to wait till someone see's the frakkin' movie before proclaiming how badly and totally it's gonna suck. Especially based on one crappy low-quality picture of a full sized mock-up.
> 
> Abrams managed to get a good performance out of Tom Cruise, if he can do _that_ making a shuttlecraft look good should be a piece of frakkin' cake.





PhilipMarlowe said:


> Are you kidding? DON'T YOU REALIZE JJ ABRAMS MADE THAT SHUTTLE LOOK LIKE THE SLEEPERMOBILE TO SAY FRAK YOU TO STAR TREK FANS?!
> 
> Plus, I also have it on good authority it's solar powered and is named the _Michael Moore_.





PhilipMarlowe said:


> Here's a sneak peak at the new communicator design:


You are having waaaay too much fun with this.

Having said that, count me in the "shuttle's design is uninspired" camp. I will not cast aspersions on the movie sight unseen though. Abrams has earned my confidence and will only lose it if he wrecks this movie.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm not a too frequent poster here, but I have to agree that the shuttle is crap. And I shudder thinking that we are going to see either Korner's Enterprise, or a close resemblance. If I am a purist, then shoot me. I'm just not sold on this movie. Maybe in time, but right know if it was out, I'd skip it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The new Enterprise is not based on Gabe K's design, although there is a distinct resemblance.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I hope your right Carson about the ship.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

First look at the Enterprise guys...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Looks YUMMY!!! 


Arm the mustard!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I don't see any ham, so I guess Shatner's not commanding this one!


----------



## hackercat13 (Apr 15, 2008)

scotpens said:


> I don't see any ham, so I guess Shatner's not commanding this one!


Wouldn't that be Canadian bacon?


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

There's some fat in that design.

Now That would attract the Planet Killer!

PIGS IN SPACE!!!


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

OK, now I'm confused. The first one is the shuttle and the second is an old cell phone? Is the third one the new Enterprise?


----------



## Ruckdog (Jan 17, 2006)

As for the ship design....doesn't look all that bad to me. A little more industrial, perhaps, than the old TOS design. Hard to say, though, I bet it will look quite a bit different on screen with all the lighting etc.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Don't worry! It will be fixed in post-production. :thumbsup:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Don't worry! It will be fixed in post-production. :thumbsup:


Touché!

[IMG-LEFT]http://www.virtualcar.it/public/media0a/pininfarina_modulo_conf.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]


Actually, THIS is the new shuttlecraft . . .












[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=61921&stc=1&d=1214785156[/IMG-LEFT]



and THIS is the new communicator!


----------



## hackercat13 (Apr 15, 2008)

What car is that? Pretty cool looking, but a bear to drive! I would believe that as the shuttle more than the pic which started this all!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The car is the Modulo, a non-running mockup based on a Ferrari 512 chassis, which debuted at the Geneva Auto Show in 1970. Doesn't look very practical as a car -- those skirted front wheels would have meant a very wide turning circle, and there's no rearward vision at all -- but stick on a couple of nacelles and it would make a cool shuttlecraft!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Doesn't look any better or any worse than some of the other shuttle designs over ST's history. Oh, wait,it's different-that's it. Sure there have been sweeter looking shuttles-in perfectly mediocre Trek films. In fact it does look better than a few of them. I've got a better looking refrigerator than some of the shuttles in Next Gen but I don't hear anyone starting blogs about how butt ugly they were. This movie simply has a built in 'hate' factor from die hard fans. Again it's a reboot-not a remake. In a reboot you are not obligated to make everything exactly the way it was in the original. A big difference that some folks can't (or simply won't) wrap their heads around. Geez, can this film get threaded in the projector before we start picking it apart? I can pretty much guarantee that when this film is finally done, a lot of people are gonna eat a big bowl of crow much like the one that was served up when some folks trashed Casino Royale before they even saw it. I hope they knock this Trek film out of the park 'cause if they do I'm gonna LMAO at all the naysayers.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

JeffG said:


> Doesn't look any better or any worse than some of the other shuttle designs over ST's history. Oh, wait,it's different-that's it. Sure there have been sweeter looking shuttles-in perfectly mediocre Trek films. In fact it does look better than a few of them. I've got a better looking refrigerator than some of the shuttles in Next Gen but I don't hear anyone starting blogs about how butt ugly they were. This movie simply has a built in 'hate' factor from die hard fans. Again it's a reboot-not a remake. In a reboot you are not obligated to make everything exactly the way it was in the original. A big difference that some folks can't (or simply won't) wrap their heads around. Geez, can this film get threaded in the projector before we start picking it apart? I can pretty much guarantee that when this film is finally done, a lot of people are gonna eat a big bowl of crow much like the one that was served up when some folks trashed Casino Royale before they even saw it. I hope they knock this Trek film out of the park 'cause if they do I'm gonna LMAO at all the naysayers.





James T. Kirk said:


> Don't mince words, Bones; what do you *really* think?




Qapla'

SSB


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

I'm looking forward to seeing what Abrams can do with Star Trek. It's not a defiant "go ahead, prove yourself" atitude. No bashing here.

But that shuttle - seriously??

Ya know, I _had_ that shuttle once. When I was a kid. It was the cardboard carton from a refrigerator that I glued some "nacelles" to. 

Ugly isn't preferable, but I can deal with ugly if need be. What I don't want is cheap and unconvincing.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Oh Come on!

there is nothing uglier than this.

what a cheap looking piece of crap this was


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Yes, that was definitely a low point in Trek vehicle design. It must have been slapped together with a few sheets of particle board and Bondo. And are those engine nacelles or giant pencils?


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Most everyone complained about the NX-01 from Enterprise because it seemed to leap-frog design elements backwards from later designs to a supposed pre-TOS ship. For conversation sake, is it possible that designers took that response into account and purposely retro-designed the shuttle to not look as sleek as later designs?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Didn't some folks also think that _Batman Begins_ would totally suck because of the chunky looking Tumbler?

And we know how right they were.

Huzz


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

It _is_ a fact that there have been a few shuttles in Trek history that looked exactly this cheap. Personally, I don't see it as a justification to keep repeating that mistake. It looks like what it is - a quick adorned box to walk actors into and out of. TNG at least had the excuse of being television. Trek V went cheap, and got horrible reviews (granted, not just for the fx and art design...)

Chris, I remember a lot of guys pointing to the early sketch work for TOS when the Akiraprise came out, saying the original Enterprise evolved from configurations of much more basic shapes so the prequel should have gone in that direction. That _is_ the impression I get with this shuttle design, to be fair...I'm wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt here. I'm still not convinced that thing can fly though. I'm hoping it will look better on film. Would like to see the front of that beast.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

It sure would have been nice to see someone come up with good, more realistic versions of TOS designs. I remember how far ahead those designs looked in 1966 -- no one had ever seen anything like them. Originally, Star Trek was never intended to look like reality, but some idealized version of it. It was never intended to have a "hardware" look to it. In fact, they seemed to go out of their way to make everything have simple, clean lines, like modern art. It was never intended to look clunky and metallic the way the new designs do. If someone could have taken the original designs, improved them somewhat, yet retained the original sleek feel of it, that would have been art. What they appear to have done is gone with the current convention of making space hardware look like something you might find in a warehouse.

Just my opinion.

All this being said, if the movie is really good, I'm willing to overlook the designs. Remember the sets and props from Wrath of Khan -- yikes, those were done on the cheap in a big way. Still the best of the Trek movies (oh I know I'll get some guff for that one!).


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

CaliOkie said:


> If someone could have taken the original designs, improved them somewhat, yet retained the original sleek feel of it, that would have been art.


I think that's basically what they did with the Refit _Enterprise_ in _STTMP_. Although I have to admit, on first viewing, I didn't like the art-deco look of the new warp nacelles. They seemed too "styled," too much design for design's sake. But the Refit/_Enterprise_-A has grown on me over the years. It's my second favorite Big E after the original.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

It's a bad design for Trek : highly un-trek-like. Are those rocket boosters on the sides? Please! A-grav folks! Those are not nacelles in anyway whatsoever. If any kind of flames shoot out of them, I will walk out of the theater at that point.

That shuttle shown belongs in a 'rag-tag fleet' or tucked away in a Mos Eisley alcove, not on a star fleet base. 

Trek designs were unique and shattered all previous conceptions of space ships that had come before. They were clean lines. Jefferies was a visionary. Trek was the glossy future -where worlds live largely in peace and can devote themselves to the finer things. 

As for this movie likely/guaranteed being a piece of crud, it's not the shuttle or the Big E herself. How about established personal histories of the main characters? Their ages are all over the place. There is simply no way they could be at the SFA together. However it remains to be seen what they will do with the script. I will likely watch it as they can't make the franchise worse. It's been driven into the ground since way back.

But that Andorian security guard is total wow!!! Her hands aren't big. It's the short cuffs. 

If they largely honor the original designs, I will be ok with the film. That will at least help compensate for a lousy script. And if the script is acceptable, that will help compensate for crappy design. And if the designs and the script both rock, I will be pleasantly surprised. But even that won't drag me back to being the hardcore trekkie I was before the fall. 

Just as Dr. Who went into a downward spiral for many years before being utterly canceled, and now revived in a semi-acceptable mode, so too it could happen w/ Trek.

We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Model Man said:


> It's been driven into the ground since way back.


It's not the only thing to be driven in the ground.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

It's simple. The new old NX01 was too new, so now the old new shuttle is old. But if all the time travel changed the past, as was said in Enterprise, then shouldn't the new old shuttle be newer than the old new old enterprise? But maybe this is getting old, but is that anything new?


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

^^^^ :thumbsup:

Love it


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

terryr said:


> It's simple. The new old NX01 was too new, so now the old new shuttle is old. But if all the time travel changed the past, as was said in Enterprise, then shouldn't the new old shuttle be newer than the old new old enterprise? But maybe this is getting old, but is that anything new?


Oh, geeez.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

*Perhaps There's Hope for Optimism*

Read what JJ's friend Harry over at Ain't it Cool says about edited scenes of the new flick that he got to see. He even describes a SPFX shot that sounds very sweet - old federation ship with saucer and vertically-mounted warp nacelles.

It's at: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37248


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Larva said:


> He even describes a SPFX shot that sounds very sweet - old federation ship with saucer and vertically-mounted warp nacelles.


Well, as long as the cat's of the bag, the vessel described by Knowles is based on one of the early Matt Jeffries concept sketches for the TOS _Enterprise_.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Doesn't look any better or any worse than some of the other shuttle designs over ST's history. Oh, wait,it's different-that's it. Sure there have been sweeter looking shuttles-in perfectly mediocre Trek films. In fact it does look better than a few of them. I've got a better looking refrigerator than some of the shuttles in Next Gen but I don't hear anyone starting blogs about how butt ugly they were. This movie simply has a built in 'hate' factor from die hard fans. Again it's a reboot-not a remake. In a reboot you are not obligated to make everything exactly the way it was in the original. A big difference that some folks can't (or simply won't) wrap their heads around. Geez, can this film get threaded in the projector before we start picking it apart? I can pretty much guarantee that when this film is finally done, a lot of people are gonna eat a big bowl of crow much like the one that was served up when some folks trashed Casino Royale before they even saw it. I hope they knock this Trek film out of the park 'cause if they do I'm gonna LMAO at all the naysayers.





Lou Dalmaso said:


> Oh Come on!
> 
> there is nothing uglier than this.
> 
> what a cheap looking piece of crap this was





Dave Hussey said:


> Didn't some folks also think that _Batman Begins_ would totally suck because of the chunky looking Tumbler?
> 
> And we know how right they were.
> 
> Huzz


Yep, could not agree more. 

I will reserve my judgment until I actually SEE the film and can get a better sense at how this shuttle may interact. I agree that the design of this shuttle is not at first pleasing to the eye, but then again, NX-01 was not either, yet that design has grown on me.


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

I keep telling myself I don't want to know too much about this movie before I go see it, but I just can't stop myself having a peek now and then and the pics as they come out.
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. There have been some awful shuttle desigs in Trek, but we all still watched the shows.
I was only a month old when TMP came out, but I bet there were 'Die Hards' saying I hope they don't change the ship, now just about everyone agrees the Refit is probably the best incarnation of the ship. 
Change is good. Anyway, I'm not convinced howthe new actors are going to work in their roles....... but I'll see how it goes. Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best, as they say.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

thestartrekker said:


> I was only a month old when TMP came out, but I bet there were 'Die Hards' saying I hope they don't change the ship, now just about everyone agrees the Refit is probably the best incarnation of the ship.


Whipper-snapper  - I watched the original eps when they were new - was in College when TMP came out

I wasn't against the change for TMP, because it was an Update, not a re-design.

Abrams, however, seems bound and determined to do a complete re-boot of the franchise - up to and including mauling our beloved ships - I thought the original shuttle was actually a good design.... still do... that "thing" that's been posted is way too military looking for Star Trek - would work for B-5 or SSTroopers though.




thestartrekker said:


> Change is good. Anyway, I'm not convinced how the new actors are going to work in their roles....... but I'll see how it goes. Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best, as they say.


The worst part is they're making them all the same general age - Pavel and JT both at the Academy at the same time? Only if JT is teaching classes as a Commander prior to his promotion and assignment as E's new captain

Abrams is turning the whole ST Universe upside down - and I'm afraid that though he may pull in enough general SF viewers, he's going to alienate the crowd of us who kept ST going all those years between TOS and TMP

Atlantis


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Starbuck's a woman! What the...!


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

I thought the original Star Trek folks lived a lot longer than we currently do, and the Vulcans definitely did, so maybe they could all attend Starfleet at the same time and be the 'real' relative ages, and/or just be in different graduating classes.


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

USS Atlantis said:


> Whipper-snapper  - I watched the original eps when they were new - was in College when TMP came out
> 
> Yeah, I was like... ten when the original series was on. And I am going to reserve judgment until I see the film. Moviegoing over the last several years has taught me to wait for it and make up my mind, then. There were several films that I just couldn't wait for, and STILL bare the pain of disappointment, if not outright insult to my intelligence. Films such as :
> 
> ...


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Jaruemalak said:


> Movies are three things. Story, Story and Story. After that, everything else is gravy.


 True enough, for general films, or new franchises

My issue is that Abrams seems to be going back, and pretty much ignoring alot of what Gene set up

BSG? I could care less that Starbuck became female - I never really liked Dirk B's portrayal anyway. And they never really changed the base story plot in any case - 12 Human Colonies destroyed by evil Machines, remaining humans search for 'mythical' 13th Colony led by ship commander Adama, his son, leader of the fighter pilots, and a card-playing, cigar-smoking hotshot fighter-jock

Abrams ST? Mucking up established timelines and character age differences that have been in place for over 40 years? That I have an issue with


----------



## hackercat13 (Apr 15, 2008)

I feel compelled to mention, ITS A SHUTTLE! A freakin utility vehicle! Doesn't have to be sleek, or sexy. Must go from A to B with maximum reliability. With impulse engines, inertial dampeners, navigational deflectore, etc, doesn't need to be aerodynamic or anything else. For sheer practicallity, a rectangular shape with seats (yellow schoolbus) would work as well as anything! 

Look at real world technology, transports, especially military ones, tend to be butt-ugly. M113, Humvee, dukw, BMP, half-tracks, I mean probably the best utility helicopter EVER is the Chinook, and it's about as sexy as a pair of granny panties! I'd loose a bit of suspention of disbelief if a transport and utility vehicle looked like a ferrari with nacells.

Whew, there's my 2 cents worth!
Chris


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Let's also not forget the reason that the TOS Enterprise was as smooth and cleaned lined as she was. Their intention was to show that technology had advanced to the point that you DIDN'T need all sorts of greeblies hanging on the outside of the ship. Everything was internal and the smooth hull was there to hold it all together. Be it a Starship or shuttle, not clunky things with welded on plates and (possibly) booster engines.

I also take exception the the "heavy military shuttle". With Rodenberry at the helm Starfleet was never presented as a military organization. The ships were exploration vessels with defensive armament. Humanity had moved beyond their warring past. B&B ruined that as well.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Let's also not forget the reason that the TOS Enterprise was as smooth and cleaned lined as she was. Their intention was to show that technology had advanced to the point that you DIDN'T need all sorts of greeblies hanging on the outside of the ship. Everything was internal and the smooth hull was there to hold it all together. Be it a Starship or shuttle, not clunky things with welded on plates and (possibly) booster engines.


That's one of the things I like about TOS. I've aways liked that aspect and it gave the show an ultra modern and futuristic look in my mind.


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

Abrams is turning the whole ST Universe upside down - and I'm afraid that though he may pull in enough general SF viewers, he's going to alienate the crowd of us who kept ST going all those years between TOS and TMP

Atlantis[/QUOTE]

I hear what you're saying, but lets face it, Abrams at isn't the only one at the helm of Trek to alienate us Trekkies in the recent years. 
Like I say, I haven't made up my mind yet, and won't until I see the movie.
I am resigned to the fact that there will be changes in ship designs, interior sets, probably even a few tweeks with the most famous characters in TV/cinema history(which is what I'm more concerned about to be honest).
I still can't see anyone but the Shat doing Kirk, and ditto for the rest.:freak:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Is J.J. Abrams also to blame for the several weak films and sub-par series' we've endured over the years as well? The Trek franchise has been a disappointing debacle for a while now. Sorry if the die hards get offended, but let's just call a shoe a shoe. It's time for a rebirth. I'm also not expecting Chris Pine to do a Saturday Night Live take on William Shatner's acting style either. I suppose that'll be a cause for concern too.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

JeffG said:


> I'm also not expecting Chris Pine to do a Saturday Night Live take on William Shatner's acting style either. I suppose that'll be a cause for concern too.


If he does, Denny Crane will sue.


Denny Crane.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Good one!:thumbsup:


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

re: The clunky shuttle design..
I'm taking the design as something used in the war. Wasn't Pike involved in a war? Wasn't it supposed to have been against the Romulans?
Anyway, I can accept it as a pre-TOS shuttle or troop transport. Heck, I'm even up for a different version of the Enterprise (or more than one if thats what they have planned).
Ready, that is, as long as the film shows the Enterprise we know sometime by the end.
here is what I see happening..

(fanboy sitting in audience blogging on his iphone)
WORST TREK FILM EVER!!!!
The Enterprise looks NOTHING like we remember..... (etc)


later....
when he finishes watching the film
(edit) BEST TREK FILM EVER [you'll never guess the surprise ending!!!!]

yeah, I bet I'll see that happening 

I have a feeling that we are going to see a very different Enterprise for most of the film and towards the end she will become the Ship we are all hoping to see grace the screens. Just in time for the sequel.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

If nothing else, the whole post-TOS string of productions has proved one thing;

"hope" springs eternal.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The irony of this all this pre-release debate is that the finished film is unlikely to arouse much passion one way or the other. 

As some of you know, I'm working on _Trek XI_. My non-disclosure agreement forbids me from discussing what I've seen, except to offer the following prediction: Those who maintain the film is going to suck will no doubt be pleasantly surprised. Likewise, those who think the film is going to rock will probably be somewhat disappointed.

There are fantasy films that blow us away (_Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings_), and there are fantasy films that simply blow (_Fantastic IV, 10,000 BC, Eragon_). _Trek XI_ falls somewhere in between.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I can live with those odds.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I rather liked the Fantastic Four movies. But then, I went in _expecting_ the Fantastic Four, not Citizen Kane.

Carson, can you at least give us some reassurances regarding the ship?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Carson, can you at least give us some reassurances regarding the ship?


Oh, I'm sure he could tell us much more, but then he'd have to kill us . . .


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

I know that I’ve not posted much here but couldn’t resist chiming in on the subject. I love TOS, so much in fact that I often have trouble with the spin-offs and I hate when “the powers to be” do things that contradict the Trek bible. I disliked when the Vulcan’s discovered us, instead of the other way around. I cringed with the portrayal of Zefram Cochrane as a drunk, fumbling, idiot from earth instead of an engineer from Alpha Centauri. 

My only hope was that Hollywood would have learned some lesson with Batman and James Bond reboots. With many series (like trek), they spend less and less but making more outlandish films until they’ve milked the franchise dry. ST’s milk dried up with almost each successive movie (and series).

The shuttle looks like crap, it’s that simple. I’m reminded of the ‘V’ series for some reason. The only way to make it look good IMHO is for it to be shown at night in a fog. I’ve been pretty disappointed in the lack of time, money and talent devoted to a wonderful series. Maybe I’m part of the problem. They made the movies and suckered me in even when I didn’t want to go. I compare pre-production, set and post work with other Sci-Fi movies and wonder why they’ve no respect for the subject (or us).

I contend that ST is more than just make believe. Just watching folks in the ‘Trekies’, ‘Free Enterprise’, etc. can show that. Most of us will never dress in outlandish outfits but our lives (even in small ways) have been shaped by that love. When suits at Paramount trash this subject it throws pie on everyone’s face.

I remember the wow of a series I first saw in syndication. 

I wanted to attend a military academy because of Star Trek – and I did. 
I wanted to be an engineer because of Scotty – and I am. 
I wanted to pilot my own aircraft after watching Sulu at the Helm and fortunately I do.

I’ll still go see the movie, like most of you will. It can’t be as terrible as the last two ‘abominations’ they threw on the screen. There was a time when I’d see a see a good film several times. Carson, I wish you could challenge them to make that happen again.

I appreciate these forums and thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I always look forward to reading all of your posts every day (and seeing the amazing work).


P.S. – The revered trivia at the academy (beyond normal indoc) used to be ST. That was how highly it was thought of.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Let's also not forget the reason that the TOS Enterprise was as smooth and cleaned lined as she was. Their intention was to show that technology had advanced to the point that you DIDN'T need all sorts of greeblies hanging on the outside of the ship.


The reason the TOS Enterprise was smooth and clean lined is because in the 1960's, that is what the future looked like. How many movies can you name before 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that had the sharp angles and greeblies?

The problem is that today, the clean, featureless look doesn't read as futuristic. It reads as retro camp.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

hubert said:


> I know that I’ve not posted much here but couldn’t resist chiming in on the subject. I love TOS, so much in fact that I often have trouble with the spin-offs and I hate when “the powers to be” do things that contradict the Trek bible. I disliked when the Vulcan’s discovered us, instead of the other way around. I cringed with the portrayal of Zefram Cochrane as a drunk, fumbling, idiot from earth instead of an engineer from Alpha Centauri.


If they are contradicting the Trek Bible, it is only the Apocrypha. When was it ever established that humans discovered the Vulcans? What makes you think Cochrane was from Alpha Centuri? Because of Kirk's comment in "Metamorphis?" Did you complain about _Lawrence of Arabia_ because they cast someone who was obviously Irish instead of an Arab? As for Cochrane being a drunk (I don't know where you got the idea he was an idiot.), what in "Metamorphosis" contradicts that? Besides, the fact that he wasn't the flawless, legendary hero history had painted him was the whole point of the movie!

Recently, I've come to believe that the biggest problem with Trek is the fans. Why would anyone with any creativity want to work on something if they'd have to put up with nonsense like this.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

hubert said:


> . . . I cringed with the portrayal of Zefram Cochrane as a drunk, fumbling, idiot from earth instead of an engineer from Alpha Centauri.


Frankly, I was never very impressed with either Glenn Corbett's wimpy Zefram Cochrane in "Metamorphosis," or James Cromwell's portrayal of the the character as an eccentric, aging hippie in _First Contact_.


hubert said:


> The shuttle looks like crap, it’s that simple. I’m reminded of the ‘V’ series for some reason.


Paint Starfleet markings on the Skyfighter and it wouldn't look half bad!











BEBruns said:


> . . . Did you complain about _Lawrence of Arabia_ because they cast someone who was obviously Irish instead of an Arab?


If you mean Peter O'Toole, T.E. Lawrence, known as "Lawrence of Arabia," was born in Wales and of Anglo-Irish descent.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I was never really impressed with the portrayals of Cochrane either. Cromwell is a fine actor, but you can only interpret what was written-I don't blame him as an actor. In fact, I thought the whole thing seemed like corner cutting, a bunch of folks in the woods, minimal sets and yet you make a warp drive ship here with what you have to work with? How many people does it take to put a rocket into space yet they were surrounded by a few survivors who looked as if they could barely make a pot of coffee.It just seemed cheap and not in the slightest convincing of what would be needed to make a ship go faster than light. Way faster. And we're worried about what Abrams is gonna do? Please.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

something i havent seen anyone mention here: ok this is a starfleet shuttle, one of many types and styles. sure it looks clunky, but in relation to a sports car, so does a bus. now what if this thing lands and 60 or so people walk out of it? suddenly the big rectangular clunky design makes sense.


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

BEBruns said:


> Recently, I've come to believe that the biggest problem with Trek is the fans. Why would anyone with any creativity want to work on something if they'd have to put up with nonsense like this.


That may be one of the single most intelligent statements I've heard in a long time, and I AM a major Trek fan from WAY back! 

People don't seem to want to remember that the show started in the middle 1960's! The "future" looked as different to the makers of Trek then as it did to the makers of "Destination Moon" in the fifties. Yes, for the most part, the designs in Trek had a sleek, cool futuristic look, but not everything. Even Roddenberry said that the hallways in the original Enterprise looked like they came out of a Holiday Inn. And remember that "high-tech futuristic" ships chronometer on the bridge... the one with the mechanical wheels that turned with the numbers painted on? The plain and simple fact is that the designers of Trek had to work with many limitations, such as time, materials and most of all, money. Even the original Trek shuttle was going to be designed differently, but the studio couldn't (or wouldn't) afford to build it they sleek way the designers wanted. AMT Model company payed to build the full size set, so that they could get the rights to make and sell the model kit.

Something that too many Trek (or in fact, ANY genre) fans forget is that you can NOT make a big budget movie for just the fans. I don't care if it is Trek, Firefly, X-Men, whatever. Any big budget film MUST be made for the general public, not just the fans. Because in virtually every case, if a film is made only for the fans, it will not make back the money involved in production. And when a movie bombs, Hollywood is usually not too keen on giving it another shot. And before I get attacked with all kinds of examples of how movies bombed and still got another made, I DID say usually, not always, and more often than not, a film that bombed at the box office but gets a sequel made back the money some how or another. A good example is the original Robocop, which bombed BADLY at the box office, but made a fortune in DVD sales. Go fig!

Don't get me wrong... I love Trek. It has been a big part of my life for MOST of my life, and I am 51. But I am also realistic. The basic idea of the new movie is to inject some new life into the franchise and get some NEW fans... and by fan, I mean people who like the movie enough to buy a ticket to the next film, or buy it on DVD. I'm sorry, but in the mind of the studios, movies are money, plain and simple. If it makes money, they will make more films, DVD's, toys, models, etc. If it doesn't make money, it is going to take a lot of fast talking to get more made.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

BEBruns said:


> The reason the TOS Enterprise was smooth and clean lined is because in the 1960's, that is what the future looked like. How many movies can you name before 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that had the sharp angles and greeblies?
> 
> The problem is that today, the clean, featureless look doesn't read as futuristic. It reads as retro camp.


I agree and yet we've all asked for it. We've wanted to see more details (inside and out). With each detail comes a cost (and often a contradiction) like the following...

- Pre-defined windows (thankfully this is something thing CGI can do better although I still laugh when they 'black out' the viewing ports on TOS remastered). They may do it to make a point, however.

- Docking ports that look 'cool' but have led to nothing but contradictions with sizing problems and reasons: why have the hanger deck, etc.

- Cargo and storage bays that are 'badly designed' running the length of the secondary hull (sure they do) look bad on matte paintings, etc.

- Sets designed to look cool but serve no useful purpose.

IMO, I would rather see something simple, but well done vs. extravagant and hokie. I may just be too tough to please but God knows I've supported the Franchise over the years. 

Its funny though, I'll accept the problems above under certain conditions. To get that suspension of disbelief today, I've watched the first hour of Alien (plenty of greeblies there) over and over again; far more than most Trek films...


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I agree, all very good points.

But why can't they keep to the timeline? Change may be good, but indiscriminate, radical change for the sake of change can't help the movie. They need the core audience to break even at the boxoffice and buy the merchandise.

Having said that I'm still hoping for the best.

It could be a great movie, but still be bad trek.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

So, it's a boxy design. Does space really require aerodynamics? Look at the Borg cube.

So the ships' design was smooth in the '60s. Wouldn't you want all the mechanics and stuff on the inside, to reduce the number of spacewalks (and who wants to do a spacewalk at warp speed anyway)?

Look at the Apollo spacecraft (command and service modules). It's smooth. So there's precedent. Look at the International Space Station. There's stuff on the outside. There's precedent for that, too. But neither of those ships travel faster than light.

My point is, there's more than one possibility for theatrical spaceship design. All I ask is that it makes sense.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

scotpens said:


> Oh, I'm sure he could tell us much more, but then he'd have to kill us . . .



"Don't phase me, bro!"


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Jaruemalak said:


> Even Roddenberry said that the hallways in the original Enterprise looked like they came out of a Holiday Inn.


Perhaps, but it gave an 'impression' of comfort that the corridors looked that way and what we had achieved at that time




Jaruemalak said:


> Any big budget film MUST be made for the general public, not just the fans. Because in virtually every case, if a film is made only for the fans, it will not make back the money involved in production. And when a movie bombs, Hollywood is usually not too keen on giving it another shot.


No attacks from me but be prepared for another 'Insurrection' then . I always remember a quote J Frakes made after the film was released. In essance, "Star Trek is bigger than the fans now. Thats what we made this for". Of course the film "bought it's gross" the first week and completely tanked afterward - condemning Frakes to work on other hit projects like 'Thunderbirds'. 

And they'll eventually give anything another shot. I mean they gave 'The Hulk' another shot (after only 3 years); 'Batman' another shot (Even after Clooney stated they had ruined that franchise). It just requires time, effort and good writing - something that don't like in Hollywood. 

Look, I not stating that the some of these films weren't entertaining, I just think we've all settled for to little.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

scotpens said:


> If you mean Peter O'Toole, T.E. Lawrence, known as "Lawrence of Arabia," was born in Wales and of Anglo-Irish descent.


That was sort of my point. There is no more reason to think "Cochrane of Alpha Centauri" was a native Alpha Centaurian (Centaurion? Centaur?) than to think "Lawrence of Arabia was a native Arab.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

BEBruns said:


> That was sort of my point. There is no more reason to think "Cochrane of Alpha Centauri" was a native Alpha Centaurian (Centaurion? Centaur?) than to think "Lawrence of Arabia was a native Arab.


BEBruns, my point was the usual 'laundry list' of SCI-FI used to project the future. I don't know claim to know where he was born, but IIRC something like the following was stated -

"Zephrane Cochrane" SP "of Alpha Centauri" SP "inventor of the space warp?" SP

Seemed to imply in the series and James Blish adaptation that AC was "where" he discovered, developed or invented it or was, in fact native. What would the significance of AC be, if not - that he vacationed there?

SP = Shatner Pause


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

hubert said:


> Look, I not stating that the some of these films weren't entertaining, I just think we've all settled for to little.


Oh, dear god, do I agree! We do settle for too little. I think the problem lies less with the writers, directors, set and prop designers and actors than it does with the suits and bean-counters who get their grubby little hands on it after the fact. And it is those people with the money who have the final say as to what gets on the screen.

I met Gene Roddenberry back when he finally got the go ahead for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Originally the suits at Paramount were only going to allow a big budget Star Trek film if he replaced most of the main actors with NAME actors of the time. He was only half joking when he said they could see Robert Redford as Captain Kirk and Clint Eastwood as Mr. Spock! 

And not everything gets a remake, eventually. When has there been a second Vampirella movie? (OK, bad example, but I just got out of the hospital and I'm still strung out on pain killers! :freak But as to the example of The Hulk, technically it was five years ago, not three when the first hulk movie was made, and the "remake" wasn't made by the same company. The original was made by Universal, the remake by Marvel Pictures, only after re-acquiring the rights to the character. I somehow doubt Paramount is going to allow another company to make a Star Trek movie, whether this one bombs or not! :thumbsup:

BUT... all this is moot, if, as you say, we settle for too little. Maybe we DO need to voice our complaints a little more, and try to get the bean-counters to realize that we aren't going to settle for crap. I don't care how pretty the package is, when it is crap, we know it is crap.

In spite of all this... I'm still looking forward to the new movie. Yeah, it may suck, but I'll make my decision after I see it. i'm not going to boycott a movie because I don't like the look of a shuttle... which I think would look more at home on the old Galactica than on Star Trek, by the way.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

hubert said:


> BEBruns, my point was the usual 'laundry list' of SCI-FI used to project the future. I don't know claim to know where he was born, but IIRC something like the following was stated -
> 
> "Zephrane Cochrane" SP "of Alpha Centauri" SP "inventor of the space warp?" SP
> 
> ...


Possible explanation. After developing the the warp drive, Cochrane led the first interstellar expedition and founded the first human colony on Alpha Centauri.

It doesn't matter what the intention or the implication was. Having Cochrane a human who developed warp drive on Earth does not directly contradict anything that was established before.

Ex Astris Scientia addresses this directly on a page devoted to such "fanon."

And a more important point, we are talking about a single line of dialogue from a signal episode that has absolutely no significance to the story. Something like that should not constrain future writers.

This is my view of canon:

Like many fans of Star Trek, I am also a Sherlock Holmes fan. Now the Holmes stories have the same sort of fans who analyze and catalog them to death. And Arthur Conan Doyle was actually even sloppier than the Trek producers in keeping the stories consistent. 

One of the big questions of the Holmes canon is how many times was Watson married. Some fans have studied the stories, compared dates, cross-referenced it with other stories, etc. They have concluded that Watson was in fact married six times. 

One example of their reasoning: in the second Holmes story _The Sign of the Four_, Watson is attracted to Holmes's client, Mary Morstan, and in the end of the story, she aggrees to marry him. The story is clearly set in late 1888.

The next story, _A Scandal in Bohemia_, begins with Watson visiting Holmes at their old apartments. He comments that the place was "associated in my mind with my wooing." In their initial converation, we learn that Holmes and Watson haven't spoken to each other much since the wedding, and enough time has passed that Watson has put on 7 pounds and returned to his medical practice. However, the story also explicitely states that the story begins on March 20, 1888, months before he met Mary.

Now since Watson's wife is never mentioned by name in that story, some have concluded that this was actually a different woman, and Mary was his second wife. 

But the problem with that is that Watson's two defining character traits are his loyalty, and his reliability. To suggest that he married, lost his wife, moved back in with Holmes, met another woman, fell instantly in love, and married her, all within a period of a year and a half may be consistent with the "facts" of the story, but they do irreperable damage to Watson's character. 

I have no trouble simply assuming that facts in one (or both) of the stories is simply wrong. There are plenty of explanations you can make to justify it (e.g. Watson deliberately altered the facts in _Scandal_ to hide the identity of Holmes's royal client), but I really don't need that.

When you are talking about "canon" you have to take into account the creators' intent, corrections of "mistakes," ignoring of fleeting, unimportant details, and just simple reasonableness.

For instance, there are some people who insist that the Romulans didn't have warp (or some other kind of faster than light) drive at the time of "Balance of Terror." This is nonsense. Earth fought a war with the Romulans a hundred years before. You can't have an interstellar war without both sides having FTL capabilities.

Kirk has three nephews in one episode and only one in another. The drama of "Operation - Annihilate" depends Kirk having only one living relative left. The line in "What are Little Girls Made of" is simply an incidental piece of trivia. If he had said he had only one nephew, or if he had asked the Kirk duplicate about his childhood pet, it would have no affect on the story. Therefore, Kirk only has, and only ever had, one nephew. 

And the Enterprise in Pike's error used phasers, not lasers. A laser will not melt a giant hole in a transparent wall. (If you read _The Making of Star Trek_, you'll see that it was suggested to Roddenberry that they not be called lasers during the production of the 1st pilot. When they made the 2nd one, he aggreed it was mistake and corrected it.)

And the Eugenics Wars did not happen in the 1990's. (They may have in the 1960's, but not anymore.)

Canonicity, continuity. and consistency should never become a strait-jacket.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

BEBruns said:


> When you are talking about "canon" you have to take into account the creators' intent, corrections of "mistakes," ignoring of fleeting, unimportant details, and just simple reasonableness.


Well said, sir. Now I will sit back and watch as your well-reasoned shall be ignored and disregarded, as such things always are.

One of my favorite examples of the sort of thing you're talking about is Kirk's comment about the Romulan War having taken place "100 years ago" or "a century ago" or whatever the exact quote might have been. There are those who believe that this comment means, at the very least, that the year in which Kirk spoke those words was the 100th anniversary of the beginning of said war. But why would we presume near Spock-like precision from Kirk? How many of us might say in conversation that the United States of America has existed for two centuries, or might even use the words "200 years"? It isn't accurate -- and in fact, we're now closer to 250 years than to 200. But how many of us would correct someone who said such a thing? Except in unusual circumstances, we wouldn't push our nerd specs up the bridge of our noses and say, "Um, excuse me, but I believe you mean to say that the United States has existed for _232_ years and five days, give or take a few hours." Someone says 200 years -- we know what they mean, even though it isn't the most precise answer. I presume the same thing of Kirk's comment.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Carson, can you at least give us some reassurances regarding the ship?


I wish I could, but as a wise man once said…



scotpens said:


> Oh, I'm sure he could tell us much more, but then he'd have to kill us . . .


Actually Paramount’s attorneys that would be doing the killing, and their first target would be yours truly.

In the course of my career I've worked for some very secretive people (Kubrick, Lucas, Speilberg, Fincher, Jackson, etc). At no point however have I encountered the level of secrecy that surrounds _Trek XI_. I thought _Cloverfield_ was bad, but the level of paranoia generated by_ ST_ is downright Orwellian.



hubert said:


> I’ll still go see the movie, like most of you will. It can’t be as terrible as the last two ‘abominations’ they threw on the screen. There was a time when I’d see a see a good film several times. Carson, I wish you could challenge them to make that happen again.


Yeah, for some reason J.J. hasn’t been returning my calls.



razorwyre1 said:


> something i havent seen anyone mention here: ok this is a starfleet shuttle, one of many types and styles.


As has been mentioned elsewhere, there is another shuttlecraft in the film, one much more evocative of the TOS design.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

BEBruns said:


> Possible explanation. After developing the the warp drive, Cochrane led the first interstellar expedition and founded the first human colony on Alpha Centauri.


From your link.
... Reasons for such false canon are that fans are constantly attempting to rationalize problems or to fill gaps in biographies or specifications. In some other cases, misconceptions and over-interpretations of canon facts have been perpetuated, sometimes unconsciously in official reference books

who's doing what now?



BEBruns said:


> It doesn't matter what the intention or the implication was. Having Cochrane a human who developed warp drive on Earth does not directly contradict anything that was established before.


I never wrote that he wasn't human but it does when he's an 'aging hippie' developing rocket engines in the forest (Thanks JeffG, I couldn't have summed it up better). (Oh yeah right, Cochrane was only 39 and just has that 'skin problem'). I do appreciate your points, however, and certainly I could be wrong but here's a funny, true story you may enjoy that comes from this very subject. 

My best friend goes to see 'first contact'. Overall, he enjoyed it but was so mad at the Cromwell protrayal/betrayal that he has refused to see any future movies. I'm sure the 'bean counters' have since made up for the loss of revenue with new fans to the franchise. This came at a tremendous expense, however. I'm talking about a single, male fan that would open his wallet for things that go Trek. Not anymore. You may say this is his problem and forget him but I'm certain that the Franchise is out $1-2K because of this. (Then again he walked out on of The Final Frontier after 30 minutes complaining that the series ended with that one and he didn't care to see his heroes sitting around the campfire telling 'fart' jokes. I should have known he had better taste than me then. )​


BEBruns said:


> And a more important point, we are talking about a single line of dialogue from a signal episode that has absolutely no significance to the story. Something like that should not constrain future writers.


I would agree with you normally but this wasn't some passing statement. A timeline was established with the next line of when he died, giving the Trek world a length of time with Warp, etc.



BEBruns said:


> Like many fans of Star Trek, I am also a Sherlock Holmes fan. Now the
> Canonicity, continuity. and consistency should never become a strait-jacket.


Good, something else we both enjoy! 

Look, this is not a pissing contest. I simply believe that they can satisfy the public without insulting the fans. Does it take more effort, yes. I still have hope for the new movie for all the reasons stated by the past posts. The question remains, will this pull people (like me) back in or push us further out the door.



Jaruemalak said:


> I met Gene Roddenberry back when he finally got the go ahead for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Originally the suits at Paramount were only going to allow a big budget Star Trek film if he replaced most of the main actors with NAME actors of the time. He was only half joking when he said they could see Robert Redford as Captain Kirk and Clint Eastwood as Mr. Spock!


I'm sure you are correct with your points, Jaruemalak and great story (if sad).


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

BEBruns said:


> Canonicity, continuity. and consistency should never become a strait-jacket.


Thank goodness-finally a voice of reason!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I heartily agree, and it's something I've said before, that sometimes the fans are Trek's worst enemy. I remember having a conversation with another fan a year or so after the release of Star Trek - The Motion Picture and offhandedly commenting that I would have liked to have seen a little more conflict between the characters. This young woman practically went ballistic: "I want MY Enterprise crewmembers to like each other and get along!" She'd defined what Star Trek was--"hers"--and how she expected its characters to behave, drama be damned.

The fans are not monolithic--there are fans of each series, many of whom look down on the other entries in the franchise as beneath contempt (in fact the more devoted a fan you seem to be of any of the Trek TV series the more you're likely to hate all the others if message board arguments are any indication), and no one can even agree on which movies are the best. Studios have only box office and ratings to go by, which means that The Voyage Home should be the yardstick by which every Trek movie is measured...but a lot of fans hate The Voyage Home.

So how could any Trek production possibly take fan input into account in any serious way? There's always a lot of lip service given to "listening to the fans," but how and why do you do that? Which fans do you listen to? There are still Galactica fans who hate the new series exactly because of what it is: a dark, uncompromising vision--that happens to be terrific drama. That doesn't mean Trek needs to become as grim as Galactica, but in my opinion catering to an idea of what fans want has kept Trek from working as adult drama for a long time. And as much as I love seeing cool spaceships, I'm more interested in Trek recapturing some of the storytelling and performance thrills I got out of the original series.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Oh I think "we" fans are the problem but for the other reasons specified. We've accepted too little, for far too long. Perhaps we deserve the 'trite', 'cute' films that have been given us, never reaching half the level of a Star Wars effort (not intended as a fanatical franchise comparison). Abrams may or may not make the movie but someday, someone will (even if it is simply a fan tribute that blows the commercial stuff away).

I still say that the shuttle is crap, thankfully not as crappy as some of the others (i.e. that thing in the POS movie ST V). I'll go to the movie. As I see it, only $9 lost (the same price for going to see Saw 5 :thumbsup. Otherwise, my investment (like my friend's) is mostly gone. In a previous post I wrote that ST was more than SCI-FI, but that is not true for me anymore. It is a shame. Maybe I should have grown up earlier. I just know that I'm not alone:

From the wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

"Answering questions over whether the film would modify continuity, as either a retcon or a reboot, screenwriter Roberto Orci said Star Trek is "in some senses" a prequel, but that the terms he and producer Damon Lindelof prefer are "re-invigoration" or "re-vitalization".[63] Abrams has saluted both the fans and the continuity. "Being involved with a series that has a passionate and vocal following makes me incredibly sympathetic. They have put up with so many incarnations along the way. These fans, they are a smart bunch. They are an intelligent group. We are very respectful and we have no intention of subverting the material."[64] Later, to Empire, he said, "As someone who works on a show that has a very loyal and vocal fanbase, I do understand the need to be respectful ... I think we can do the fans proud."[65] Orci has indicated that where issues of canonicity are ambiguous, a "Supreme Court" consisting of Kurtzman, Abrams, Burk, Lindelof and himself acted as the final arbiters and that they did not "sweat every little detail [...] either you buy [our interpretation] or you don’t".[66]

Abrams has not seen Star Trek Nemesis, and claims that the franchise eventually "disconnected" for him. "​
So best of luck to Mr Abrams. I look forward to seeing his vision. 
Like Carson wrote, it won't be hard to be better than the last couple of films (or ST-V, or ... well I'll just stop there before I offend anyone )


----------



## WarbirdTA (May 21, 2008)

I just hope they don't kill off any of the staple people, or destory the Enterprise again.
Not every movie has to have that in it.
And I wonder if there will be people in red uniforms, getting killed off all the time.
We are at the point in time, where someone sends in a machine (Remote piloted vehicle) in war, and in space, first, then disposible men.
I will still go see it at the movies.

George


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

One thing that always comes through in these discussions is the belief on the part of the fans that the studio is somehow grasping for ways to "reach the fans" or "create new fans". Leaving the idiotic goal of creating "new fans" aside for the moment, stop and consider the many ways that the studio has tried to give the fans what they want in the past... oh wait, they never have! In fact, the slogan that is painted in huge letters over the main gate at Paramount reads "We don't care what the fans think". Which might simply be reduced to its core value "we don't care".

The one method that has never been tried, not once, is being true to the original series. Not once. This is curious because the few times that we have glimpsed the original series universe in the new shows, via time travel or Holodeck or whatever, have been some of the most talked about stories of any of the new productions.

Are they blind or just stupid?

Are they totally incapable of seeing how that excitement would translate directly to market share?

Instead we get an endless series of blow-hards pontificating about how "it has to be updated" or "that would never work now" etc. If that is so, how could anyone successfully market $600 TOS Phasers or $1200 models of TOS Enterprises? And in this economy no less!

The painfully obvious truth is that the fans of TOS represent the LARGEST fan base that this show will ever have, period. There is nothing that the studio can do to create a "new fan base" that will exceed that of TOS for the simple reason that they can never recreate the era in which it was made! That had has much to do with the impact of the show as anything that the studio ever did. TOS was and still is a world-wide phenomena! None of the post-TOS productions have come anywhere near that level of connection with the fans or impact on pop culture and arguably, they never will. So which makes more sense from a marketing stand-point; try to "create new fans" or try to give the existing fans what they want?

For those who think that giving the fans "what they want" is so impossible, I would argue that the best way to do that while at the same time "rebooting the franchise" is to simply return to the TOS universe. How difficult is that?

It's that simple.

Of course, it will never happen.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> One thing that always comes through in these discussions is the belief on the part of the fans that the studio is somehow grasping for ways to "reach the fans" or "create new fans". Leaving the idiotic goal of creating "new fans" aside for the moment, stop and consider the many ways that the studio has tried to give the fans what they want in the past... oh wait, they never have! In fact, the slogan that is painted in huge letters over the main gate at Paramount reads "We don't care what the fans think". Which might simply be reduced to its core value "we don't care".
> 
> The one method that has never been tried, not once, is being true to the original series. Not once. This is curious because the few times that we have glimpsed the original series universe in the new shows, via time travel or Holodeck or whatever, have been some of the most talked about stories of any of the new productions.
> 
> ...


You can't have very many friends if you're so willing to just blurt the truth out like that! 

You make perfect sense, of course. I think the one thing we forget is that every movie has to deal with the movie-making bureaucracy that, in the name of "updating" and "putting a new twist on" or doing whatever to a property, they're handing out jobs and money to friends in the industry. The politics of Hollywood are as corrupt as Washington, D.C.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Sad but true my friend.

Here is a shot of a project I've been working on recently, see what you all think about this. It is intended to be a former tactical transport which would go on to be sold surplus by Starfleet and become the "Class J Cargo ship" that was being piloted by Harry Mudd. It is meant to be of an era previous to that of the TOS Shuttlecraft but look like it was created by the same design bureau. Design features include warp nacelles that fold up to allow for a ship to ship hard dock on either side and a separable pilot pod that can support the entire crew for the duration of an interplanetary (not interstellar) flight. The human figures are six feet high and are included for scale reference.

I was going to post it as a "leaked" shot of a Shuttlecraft from the new movie but the actual one got out first. Obviously people would walk out of the theaters if the studio used designs like this, right? Right.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Phil's problem is that he's afraid to speak his mind.



While we may not agree on issues related to _Trek's_ audience (and the need to broaden it) we share a similar opinion of what's passed for "design" in the post TOS universe. For the most part the work has been pretty shoddy.

Sometimes you get what you pay for.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Well X15-A2 may not have many friends but he has at least one fan - with me.

I think this looks great and this is done by yourself, part time - is that correct? Obviously many hours are invested, but the single biggest investment was what ... caring?

This is what I meant by fan based. I doubt that this would cost that much to model today, mostly in CGI (heaven help them build a real prop). The way tools like Blender, Maya, etc. continue to evolve coupled with hardware advances - it will only be a matter of time.

The suits could become creative, offer a contest for designs, let the work go to the volunteers who care and award them in some fashion.

P.S.
However, since 'rear ramp' models were established in ST-V, don't you think some POS guy-wires holding the plywood ramp are in order? Can I fix that for you  Seriously ... many props to your work effort, X15-A2.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yah, doing TOS trek as in 1967 will never work. As X15-A2 pointed out every time one of the new treks went back to that era they were the best shows of the series. It just won't work, just look at Star ship Exeter, New voyages(phase 2), or Star Ship Farragut. These fan shows have tremendous following.

I guess the suits at paramount know better. We should be thankful that they are doing such a good job with Star Trek.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> The one method that has never been tried, not once, is being true to the original series. Not once. This is curious because the few times that we have glimpsed the original series universe in the new shows, via time travel or Holodeck or whatever, have been some of the most talked about stories of any of the new productions.



Don't you think nostalgia is a large part of the reason those episodes are so popular? And didn't all of them basically play the TOS era look for laughs?

I love the original show as well, but there are incredibly goofy elements to the TOS that only a reboot or re-imagining would fix.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

hubert said:


> I still say that the shuttle is crap, thankfully not as crappy as some of the others (i.e. that thing in the POS movie ST V). (or ST-V, or ... well I'll just stop there before I offend anyone )


I agree with some of what you say, but on the point above; Isn't a garbage truck way uglier than a Ferrari Modena. On that point, vehicles are purpose built. Perhaps not everything has / or needs to look sweet, it's form should say something about it's job. Wouldn't it look out of place if the Nostromo, a towing ship, was as sleek as the Enterprise E?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thanks hubert! Yes, this is a part-time effort. So far, CGI is the only modeling that I can do but I am making progress on my workshop so real modeling will be in my future.

PhilipMarlowe; nostalgia yes but for laughs? I hadn't heard anyone laughing. Do you think that "nostalgia" doesn't sell? 

Please explain something to me (anyone), "Star Wars" is nearly as old as "Star Trek" and, except for very minor items, it has never been "updated". Why? Would you say that this is because it is more "realistic"..? How often have we heard parents say about it that they want their kids to be able to experience some of what they felt when they were kids and saw "Star Wars" for the first time? I don't hear anyone running around yelling that it needs to be "updated", do you? They appear to be just fine with "nostalgia".

Furthermore, how can the members of this board passionately argue that TOS MUST BE UPDATED and in the very next breath say that the designs don't matter?

Look at my rendering posted above and seriously tell me that new hardware could not be designed in the Jefferies style and accepted by the audiences. I'm serious, I'll listen to any reasonable criticism here. I respect the opinions of the BB members here and would value their input plus, I really don't understand this demand that TOS be "updated". Obviously it could be updated but why should it?

Phil


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> I agree with some of what you say, but on the point above; Isn't a garbage truck way uglier than a Ferrari Modena.


 Yes


JeffG said:


> On that point, vehicles are purpose built. Perhaps not everything has / or needs to look sweet, it's form should say something about it's job. Wouldn't it look out of place if the Nostromo, a towing ship, was as sleek as the Enterprise E?


 Yes Jeff, I agree. In fact, I'm not against a 'well designed' garbage scow. But some design please, not simply slapping together MDF or plywood cut and assembled at angles because its cheaper for the prop department. Heck, I can show you a design from a seventh grader that looks almost exactly like this (unfortunately that would be me - circa 1977  Straight lines on graphing paper, baby!)



X15-A2 said:


> Thanks hubert! Yes, this is a part-time effort. So far, CGI is the only modeling that I can do but I am making progress on my workshop so real modeling will be in my future.


Phil, please don't take this the wrong way - but how does an 'amateur'; part-time (armed only with a computer) 'outdesign' almost all these abominations we've seen. Seriously, keep with it and stay a student of 'Jefferies', I'll support your work. I hope you don't tease us with just one shot of this - so give it up man 




X15-A2 said:


> Please explain something to me (anyone), "Star Wars" is nearly as old as "Star Trek" and, except for very minor items, it has never been "updated". Why? Would you say that this is because it is more "realistic"..? How often have we heard parents say about it that they want their kids to be able to experience some of what they felt when they were kids and saw "Star Wars" for the first time? I don't hear anyone running around yelling that it needs to be "updated", do you? They appear to be just fine with "nostalgia".
> 
> Furthermore, how can the members of this board passionately argue that TOS MUST BE UPDATED and in the very next breath say that the designs don't matter?
> 
> ...


I can't give you an explanation, but I can give you a 'hallelujah' from the front pew!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> I hope you don't tease us with just one shot of this - so give it up man
> 
> Here here! Spill the goods, Broad.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

While we're talking about CGI ship designs, here's one of mine I'm working on for my animation project. It's atmosphere based and can't go into space. Kind of a cross between a heli and a Leer jet. Like everything else, someday I'll finish it!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Cool!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

JeffG said:


> . . . Kind of a cross between a heli and a Leer jet. Like everything else, someday I'll finish it!


That is a bitchin' design! Just out of curiosity, how is it supposed to fly without wings? Does it get all its lift from the tilting engines, or does the fuselage create aerodynamic lift as well?

BTW, I assume you mean "Learjet." A Leer jet would be the one flown by Pussy Galore.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I was sort of thinking the tilting engines could be some sort of directional anti grav propulsion system. Thinking about one or two smaller downward facing thrust/grav vents up front under the nose-low profile. Seeing as it's an atmospheric craft, the sleek design would help. It may not rely much on it for lift though. I used to work for Lear, I thought offhand the jet was spelled differently.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> I was sort of thinking the tilting engines could be some sort of directional anti grav propulsion system. Thinking about one or two smaller downward facing thrust/grav vents up front under the nose-low profile. Seeing as it's an atmospheric craft, the sleek design would help. It may not rely much on it for lift though. I used to work for Lear, I thought offhand the jet was spelled differently.


Very impressive Jeff. Clearly "design following function" as a 'Ferrari Modena' of the sky. With anti-grav, most of your problems clearly go away. Without it, you would need the control surfaces already mentioned. Anytime I turn my twin engine baron on its side (not much lift) she doesn't fly long. I love the mixture of future /w 'slight' retro. 

Again, this is why I believe that one day, a collaborative 'group' effort may run circles around the establishment. Gabe's work is another example. Although way too greeblied (?) up for me, it is not quite what TOS was about. I think one has to be careful with design. Clear engine tops, lighting effects for no purpose can make it look like a toy that needs a couple of wheels on it with a pull string and push to activate sound effects.

It doesn't change the fact that all of these works are impressive and done solely by individuals!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Scout_3_47.jpg


That is one SWEET design!

I think you've caught a lot of the subtle sweeps and not so straight lines of the original shuttlecraft which, though avoiding compound curves for the most part, did indeed have an elegant look to it and plenty of curves. 

I actually think what Jefferies came up with in an effort to simplify construction (1701/7) is better than the first idea by a generation or two of design concepts. He really made it a more practical and believable craft, IMHO.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

JeffG; Very cool design work there! I like it. What software do you work in? I use Microstation because that is what we use at work and therefore it is what I was trained in but I also have experience (but it has been awhile) with Solidworks and Lightwave.

Recently, Ed Whitefire has been telling me that the company he works for has bought a file translation software called "Right Hemisphere". Apparently it has the ability to translate 3D models between a wide range of software types. This has been my problem for years now, I like building models in Microstation but would like to export them to other softwares for rendering and animation. Anyone here have experience with this software or with this problem?

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Originally, my design was supposed to be Cyrano Jones "one man scout ship" but when I saw "Mudds Women" again, I realized that it more closely matched the idea of Mudds "Class J cargo ship". It could be both. It is just about at the upper limit of what one man might be able to realistically operate and maintain single-handedly. Of course, on a ship that size there would still be heavy maintenance issues that would require him to find a spacecraft yard for inspection and repair. I think of this design as the "Millenium Falcon" of TOS universe.

hubert, your post reminds me of an old saying; "never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane". Okay, I'm just jealous...

I totally agree about the so-called "amateurs" taking over the franchise. We are almost there now. And one thing that I always tell people is that there is one heck of a lot of untapped talent walking around out there. Talent is actually not all that rare, what is rare is for that talent to be put to use productively. I consider myself to be a "professional" designer but because I've never been employed in that capacity which makes me an "amateur". Or perhaps a "professional without portfolio"?

One look at the talent on this BB alone makes my point about its availability.

Phil


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I remember a long time ago on one of the behind the scenes Star Wars television specials that FX Supervisor Richard Edlund said that people that can do this type of work are either doing it or working at a gas station somewhere!

Thanks for the compliment, X15. I use Lightwave and Cinema 4D, and am still learning what the hell I'm doing with both of
them! I started out using Lightwave with modeling so I tend to lean toward that for construction. I love Cinema 4D because it 'plays nice' with a lot of other programs. It can read Lightwave files and in fact import a Lightwave constructed model complete with all the textures in place. With the right plugins it can even read Poser files and animations, a seriously cool way to have animated people in your CG environments! I've got some of my animations on my profile page at http://www.myspace.com/jeffginyard
Feel free to check them out if you'd like. But don't be too harsh, it's still mainly just a hobby!

Unfortunately I can offer no advice with Microstation as I am unfamiliar with it.
BTW, awesome work on your ship as well.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

jbond said:


> I heartily agree, and it's something I've said before, that sometimes the fans are Trek's worst enemy.


I watch star trek but do not consider myself to be a "fan". I just take each star trek work and view it in its own context. from there, I take it or leave it.

That said, it looks like the makers of ST are its own worst enemy, that even included Gene Rodenberry at times (Can anyone say "Wesley Crusher"?). You fans are its best asset.

The fact is ST III, ST V, ST VII, ST IX and ST X were stinkeroos by *any* standard. You rabid Star Trek fans did not make them so. In fact, any success those dogs had was the result of you fans and the brand name.

Think about it. A Star Trek film has a 50% chance of being a piece of fecal waste matter, yet the fans will go anyway.

From the non-serious fan POV....Both ST VI and ST VIII suffer from serious credulity problems but once you get into them they are among the most entertaining of the series.

My observation is that ST suffers the most from two factors:
1. Contrived situations. Why is *ENSIGN* Kim a "senior officer"? Why does the holodeck not have an "off" switch. Why would any teenager be allowed to run a star ship? (To that we know the answer-- the flawed premise of the Will Robinson factor -- people believe they need it to attract younger viewers). Why would a teenager be allowed on the ship without a parent?

In the old making of Star Trek book, Roddenberry pontificates on the need for believability. It would have been interesting to hold hope some of his quotes and ask him to explain Wesley Crusher.

2. Lack of original ideas. How many times can the Holodeck go crazy? How many times can we have the new character we know is going to die in minutes? How many times can we have personalities split between bodies or multiple personalities in the same body.

I read an interview with the Producer of ST X in which he was giving the formula they used for the movie and, since it had all the elements, he could not understand why it was a failure. Hello! Hello! How many rehashes can you do in on picture?

(I rented ST X. If I had paid $10 at a theater I would have felt dirty.)

With a whole universe of possibilities it is amazing the shallowness of the well the ST folks have drawn from, particularly recently.

I have to say that the signs I have seen so far from the ST XI movie are not good. The (what is it 2?) release delays for a big budget picture like this suggest something seriously wrong. I'll keep an open mind until I see it but the *highly* contrived premise is one likely to lead to disaster.

One of the problems with movies in general and Sci Fi in particular is that people like to ascribe "genius" to the creators. The reality is the folks like Roddenberry and Lucas simply are not geniuses of drama. 

This lack of genius shows up with the same problems in Star Wars as well. Lucas wrote an action story and some sequels, yet repeatedly tells the BS story that he wrote a Lord of the Rings and had to cut it down.

The reality is he did to great movies (IV & V). The the lack of ideas set in. Didn't we blow up a death star in IV? Wouldn't something new have been in order for VI? We had toy marketing run amok (Ewoks).

I rewatched I-III on spike and could not believe how terrible they really are. The inclusion of "That does not compute" as dialog should dispel any notion that Lucas is a genius film maker.

It's the fans that have allow these folks to make money from schlock.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

You forgot to add how many time travel stories must there be too.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> Why would a teenager be allowed on the ship without a parent?


Although I’m no fan of Next Gen, the notion of a parentless teenager aboard a military/ exploratory vessel is hardly unprecedented.

At any rate, the real problem with post-TOS Trek has less to do with a lack of credibility than it does with a lack of emotionally compelling characters and situations.



bigjimslade said:


> I have to say that the signs I have seen so far from the ST XI movie are not good. The (what is it 2?) release delays for a big budget picture like this suggest something seriously wrong.


So far as I’m aware the release date only moved once, from Christmas 2008 to Summer 2009. Two factors contributed to this: the Writers Guild Strike, and (much more importantly) Paramount’s bloated release slate for 2008. By delaying Trek’s release to the following year the studio increases its chances of being the highest grossing studio two years in a row.



bigjimslade said:


> One of the problems with movies in general and Sci Fi in particular is that people like to ascribe "genius" to the creators. The reality is the folks like Roddenberry and Lucas simply are not geniuses of drama.


I’m fuzzy on the whole “genius” thing too (an overused term if ever there was one). Nevertheless, neither Lucas nor Roddenberry has anything to prove in terms of their contribution to cinematic pop culture -- which, in Lucas’ case, is second only to that of Walt Disney. Was Disney a genius? Who knows? Who cares?







bigjimslade said:


> I rewatched I-III on spike and could not believe how terrible they really are. The inclusion of "That does not compute" as dialog should dispel any notion that Lucas is a genius film maker.


Lucas is the first to admit he sucks at writing the type of sparkling dialogue found in, say, an Aaron Sorkin TV series. Fortunately, with Star Wars, dialogue is, and always has been, a relatively trivial part of the dramatic equation. 



bigjimslade said:


> It's the fans that have allow these folks to make money from schlock.


In the case of Lucas and Star Wars I guess I’m just too dumb to know any better.


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

Folks,

This thread has morphed into one of the more compelling I've seen on these boards for a long time.

Thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Like all great literature, STAR TREK as originally created used its characters, framework and design to tell allegorical and timeless stories about the human condition, which also directly related to the time they were created. Consider THE CAGE, detailing man's desire for freedom above all things, or ARENA, regarding both the futility of war and that things aren't always what they seem, or perhaps CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, which really comes down to the idea of "Let me help," being more important than "I love you."

There's a truth to the storytelling of the original series which came out of the producers choosing to use writers with not only extensive life experience, such as fighting in WWII or walking a police beat, but also experience writing in other mediums, whether it be plays, short stories or novels. STAR TREK was made by professional storytellers and the show's audience immediately could see the truthful nature of the stories being told.

Also, the design work of Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang weren't simply slapped together props of the week (although there were elements of that as well), but carefully considered attempts at making the TREK future credible.

IMHO, TREK's great turning point came with STAR TREK III, a film who's very existence and especially it's storyline existed only to serve the desire of one of it's principal ACTORS, not the desire to tell a terrific and relevant story. That came next. On the surface, one could argue TREK III is about the loyality of friends and family, the value of sacrifice and how we should all turn "death into a fighting chance to survive," but really, that ground was already well-covered in the series. No...TREK III is really only about...STAR TREK. Bring Spock back to life. The only thing that story does is betray the previous film's intent and commit the cardinal sin of destroying TREK's dramatic truth, which had never before been compromised by even by the worst episodes of the series, by bringing a beloved character back from the dead. Not to mention the fact all of the live action footage, with the exception of the scenes on the bridge, looked like they would've been right at home on JASON OF STAR COMMAND.

After this, STAR TREK's ability to tell relevant and meaningful stories was forever compromised and would never be taken as seriously again, because the whims of the performers became more important then the ideas of TREK itself.

Then, unlike TOS, which cleverly updated the Western format to a Science Fiction format, TNG simply tried to recreate the original series by mixing and matching elements from the original series. Forgoing the ground-breaking serialized storytelling of shows such as HILL STREET BLUES, St. Elsewhere and many other programs of the day, TNG reverted back to the teaser and four act structure of the original series. Sure, TNG did become successful, but that's only because it settled into a close approximation of what the original series always did well.

My fear for the J.J. Abrams TREK is this...there will be nothing new in terms of the storytelling. There will be nothing original in terms of the concept of what STAR TREK can be. In fact, I'm sure all the elements of whatever storyline we're getting will be instantly recognizable from other recent movies. We'll already know everything that's gonna' happen simply by virtue of having seen whatever story is being told countless times before. In fact, I believe we'll be given just another riff on the TOP GUN formula, which was in itself a riff on so many stories which came before that film. Kirk will be Maverick, some kind of arrogant screw up who will have to learn his lessons in some kind of trial by fire and then we'll get all the winks and nods to the original series by the reintroduction and reinterpretation of all the characters we already know and love.

Then, in addition to that, everything which really DOESN'T need to be changed that much, the design, etc., will be, making the film annoying to longtime fans such as myself.

The best examples of TREK in recent years were the first four seasons of THE WEST WING and Peter Weir's MASTER AND COMMANDER. If that kind of careful storytelling could be applied to the TREK franchise, we would really have something special. But we'd need the intellect and background of someone like Nick Meyer to do this and there are very few people working in the industry today who write novels, plays and screenplays in addition to directing, which is really too bad.

I don't think we'll be getting a transcendent vision of the TREK Universe next May.

I will, however, be one of the first in line.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

RMBurnett said:


> No...TREK III is really only about...STAR TREK. Bring Spock back to life. The only thing that story does is betray the previous film's intent and commit the cardinal sin of destroying TREK's dramatic truth, which had never before been compromised by even by the worst episodes of the series, by bringing a beloved character back from the dead. .


Huh? My memory of TOS as a casual fan is that just about every main character "died" once or twice over the run of the show. And they ALWAYS came back from the dead.

I'm not saying STIII didn't suck, or that the TOS didn't have decent story telling for it's day.But it used the ol' "bring 'em back from the dead" stunt often.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> . . . TREK III is really only about...STAR TREK. Bring Spock back to life. The only thing that story does is betray the previous film's intent and commit the cardinal sin of destroying TREK's dramatic truth, which had never before been compromised by even by the worst episodes of the series, by bringing a beloved character back from the dead.


Exqueeze me! In the original series, _Star Trek_'s dramatic integrity had already been too often compromised by the cheap device of bringing a character back from the dead. Remember "Shore Leave," "Amok Time," "Return to Tomorrow," "The Changeling," "Spectre of the Gun," "The Enterprise Incident," and "The Tholian Web"? In every one of those episodes, a regular character was supposedly killed, then double-talked back to life. In fact, Kirk died (or was presumed dead) and got "resurrected" THREE times!


RMBurnett said:


> . . . we'd need the intellect and background of someone like Nick Meyer to do this and there are very few people working in the industry today who write novels, plays and screenplays in addition to directing, which is really too bad.


On that we can agree. IMHO, the best Trek movies to date are _ST II: The Wrath of Khan_ and _ST VI: The Undiscovered Country_, both directed by Nicholas Meyer. He has a real feel for the characters and the material, and he deserves a special Academy Award for getting a comparatively restrained performance out of William Shatner -- twice!


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

scotpens said:


> IMHO, the best Trek movies to date are _ST II: The Wrath of Khan_ and _ST VI: The Undiscovered Country_, both directed by Nicholas Meyer. He has a real feel for the characters and the material, and he deserves a special Academy Award for getting a comparatively restrained performance out of William Shatner -- twice!


See, now here is where I disagree... to a point. I do feel that ST II is probably the best of the Trek films, but I had serious problems with VI. Much of the storytelling suffered from "writing with a crowbar", as in, you like a scene or situation so much that you are going to force it in, damned if it flies in the face of logic, or canon, or whatever. Case in point... while I have a problem with a "kitchen" on the Enterprise, I'll let it go. What I will NOT let go is a weapons locker IN same said kitchen... and in order to "demonstrate" how a phaser can't be fired without setting off alarms, a Vulcan, no less, pulls out a phaser and fires it at a cookpot, in a crowded room. Let's put the action in the present... it is the U.S.S. Ronald Regan, and a Lt. decides to prove a point by pulling out a gun and firing it into a mixer full of dough in a crowded galley! What would happen to said Lt.? And that isn't the only such incident in the film.

THANK YOU, by the way, for using the IMHO (in my humble opinion) to start out your statement. Too often, people express their opinion as fact. Saying "Star Trek Sucks" is expressing opinion as fact. Saying "I think Star Trek sucks" is expressing opinion. MUCH more civilized.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

scotpens said:


> IMHO, the best Trek movies to date are _ST II: The Wrath of Khan_ and _ST VI: The Undiscovered Country_, both directed by Nicholas Meyer. He has a real feel for the characters and the material, and he deserves a special Academy Award for getting a comparatively restrained performance out of William Shatner -- twice!


Thanks for making me laugh so much today!!! I couldn't agree more, though. Personally, I always thought STWOK was so far beyond most of the Treks. It went downhill from there. Return to the 'nautical' theme, 'tight' special effects (if not elaborate), etc. Nicholas M.and Harve B. did a 'good' job and they still had at least 'some' budget. Unfortunately, we all had to put up with its cost cutting as well (reused Special Effects, 'these lights must do something' sets, etc.).



Jaruemalak said:


> ... Case in point... while I have a problem with a "kitchen" on the Enterprise, I'll let it go.


I won't, but thanks for bringing it up (as I puke)



Jaruemalak said:


> What I will NOT let go is a weapons locker IN same said kitchen... and in order to "demonstrate" how a phaser can't be fired without setting off alarms, a Vulcan, no less, pulls out a phaser and fires it at a cookpot, in a crowded room. Let's put the action in the present... it is the U.S.S. Ronald Regan, and a Lt. decides to prove a point by pulling out a gun and firing it into a mixer full of dough in a crowded galley! What would happen to said Lt.? And that isn't the only such incident in the film.


I can tell you - he becomes 'Ensign' Rickey in the next episode...

In TOS, I always believed that the Navy of the future (or combined services) was what we were looking at (I think that is why it was so loved in our real military as well). Dual purpose, certainly. I know some of the ships in later series became exploration vessels primarily, but that was not Star Fleet's primary function in TOS. Carson may be correct on exploration ships, but I've never seen children on any military ship unless it was rescue (or parade). 
This was never the 'Love Boat' with Purser Crusher. Gene could change the original formula, but don't be surprised if it doesn't fly.

_Personally_, I look forward to the next Movie and wish they could pull a 'Superman Returns' (i.e. Richard Pryor never existed) and erase all or most of the 'Feature Films'. These 'Features', as someone pointed out, have done nothing but lower what TOS was all about. Additionally, there is just too much material that could be touched on (dirty word 'canon': Garth, Finney, Finnegan, etc.) Maybe they will, maybe they won't, we will see.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, so long as we're getting all analytical and philosophical and stuff...

Roddenberry's real genius was in producing and coming up with general concepts for others to take and run with. When it came to actual writing, he ran into problems ("The Omega Glory" anyone? Pretty compelling for the first three acts, then nearly runs off a cliff in the fourth; say what you will about Shatner's acting style, but he was the only thing that comes close to saving that last act from descending into full blown self parody). But when faced with problems _other_ writers ran up against, he was able to cook up something simple and effective to get out of the jam and get on with the story. During the run of his previous show, "The Lieutenant" he was faced with the problem of losing the cooperation they'd previously been enjoying with the US Marine Corps (mainly because Roddenberry wanted to do stories about this Vietnam thing was starting to look like it wasn't quite as advertised). With access to advisors and facilities suddenly cut off, Roddenberry immediately went about setting up reasonable facsimilies on set, drilling background extras on how to march around like real marines, etc., and the show was able to continue production for another season, where other shows would've been pretty much sunk. And, getting back to Star Trek, there's the oft-told tale of "By Any Other Name" and how the paperweight Dorothy Fontana bought him in Mexico resolved the problem of how to get a crew of 430 out of the way so that a half dozen guys with weird belt buckles can take over the ship.

As for the general concepts bit, well, there's the format of Star Trek itself. Just by setting the show in a space opera-ish environment, and taking it fairly seriously, the door is opened to do _any_ kind of story your little heart desires, within a very few restrictions.

In comparison, George Lucas set about to do something rather different. He wanted to tell a modern day myth, and made rather extensive studies of the work of Joseph Campbell to make sure he did it right. The fact that the bloated monstrosity that we call Star Wars is as big as it is shows that he got it mostly right. It tapped into some very elemental mythical themes that resonated with audiences, and continue to do so.

This also sets up the fundamental difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, even moreso than one being space opera and one flat out space fantasy.

Star Trek is a setting where stories are told, some with something important to say, some just for fun, but really more of a clearing house for inventive storytelling.

Star Wars *IS* the story. Side stories and gimickry tag along like remora on a really big shark, but Episodes I-VI all serve to service the overall story arc.

This leads us into why the Star Trek movies have been rather hit or miss, whereas Star Wars, regardless of the derisive comments from fandom, has kicked untold box office ass from start to finish.

Simply put, Star Trek is a creature of television, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent within, while Star Wars is a creature born and bred for the big screen. 

Like I said above, Star Trek is really more of a place where stories are told. Don't like this week's offering? Try next week, it'll be something different, from a different writer with something different to say.

Try that with the movies, where you're asking the audience to shell out their hard earned money and the next story, if it comes at all, probably won't be along for a couple of years. Maybe longer.

Kinda tough to do the kind of smaller, quieter, sometimes experimental episodes we loved on the small screen under those conditions. Case in point: Insurrection. If that one had run during TNG's tv run, it probably would've been hailed as one of the best episodes of whatever season it ran, and undoubtedly would've been in the running for a Hugo. But since it was a movie, and the story really wasn't big enough to really justify charging people for it, it's panned. We're a fickle bunch, ain't we?

Say what you will about Star Wars, especially the prequels, but each and every one of 'em meets the definition of *"EPIC!!"* The overall quality is debatable, but they're all big, spanning, wide open stories where the fate of an entire galaxy is hanging in the balance. Sometimes stiff performances is a small price to pay for big, expansive *EPIC STORYTELLING!!* complete with THX sound systems shaking the rafters.

And what happened when Star Trek, which by 1987 had been firmly established as a movie franchise, returned to television with TNG? It was a runaway success, in spite of a very uneven first season, because they'd returned to doing what Star Trek does best, telling stories of all shapes and sizes and not trying to take on the big epic stories that you pretty much have to take on when dealing in big (or even medium) budget sci-fi movies.

And when they forgot that lesson and tried to translate TNG to the big screen?

Franchise, meet ditch.

Granted, it was a lot more complicated than that, and the process was helped along by the rapidly decaying quality of Voyager and the never-there quality of Enterprise, but of all the TNG stories, only one was really big enough to justify a movie, First Contact. Generations was not only small in scope, it was small minded and downright agenda driven (blow up ship, check, kill Kirk, check, do jokes with Data, check...), Insurrection was a fine TNG story but, again, not really big enough in scope to justfiy a movie, and Nemesis was not only lacking in scope, but was just plain dumb.

As for the original cast movies, they're not exactly off the hook, either. They just had the distinct advantage of being the only venue to catch new stories with the original crew (whose tale was cut short after three seasons, leaving us all to feel like there was unfinished business; if the show had run the planned five seasons, it's quite likely that the entire Star Trek Phenomenon might never have happened, or at least not grown as big as quickly).

I'd go over each movie one at a time, but time won't allow that. Suffice it to say that of all six TOS movies, only TMP, TVH, and TUC, really reach the level of big, movie level stories.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

RMBurnett said:


> ...
> Also, the design work of Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang weren't simply slapped together props of the week (although there were elements of that as well), but carefully considered attempts at making the TREK future credible.
> 
> IMHO, TREK's great turning point came with STAR TREK III, a film who's very existence and especially it's storyline existed only to serve the desire of one of it's principal ACTORS, not the desire to tell a terrific and relevant story. That came next. On the surface, one could argue TREK III is about the loyality of friends and family, the value of sacrifice and how we should all turn "death into a fighting chance to survive," but really, that ground was already well-covered in the series. No...TREK III is really only about...STAR TREK. Bring Spock back to life. The only thing that story does is betray the previous film's intent and commit the cardinal sin of destroying TREK's dramatic truth, which had never before been compromised by even by the worst episodes of the series, by bringing a beloved character back from the dead. Not to mention the fact all of the live action footage, with the exception of the scenes on the bridge, looked like they would've been right at home on JASON OF STAR COMMAND.
> ...


I think I have a man-crush




bigjimslade said:


> I watch star trek but do not consider myself to be a "fan". I just take each star trek work and view it in its own context. from there, I take it or leave it.
> 
> That said, it looks like the makers of ST are its own worst enemy, that even included Gene Rodenberry at times (Can anyone say "Wesley Crusher"?). You fans are its best asset.
> 
> ...


BigJimslade man-crush! Amen.



bigjimslade said:


> (I rented ST X. If I had paid $10 at a theater I would have felt dirty.)


I still feel dirty from IX and X because I walked into them knowingly.


bigjimslade said:


> With a whole universe of possibilities it is amazing the shallowness of the well the ST folks have drawn from, particularly recently.
> ...
> It's the fans that have allow these folks to make money from schlock.


Guilty as charged.



TGel63 said:


> You forgot to add how many time travel stories must there be too.


True, like the holodeck 'vehicle'. But good time travel has never been explored (in ST films). I mean a comedy like "Back to the future" treated the concept of time travel better than ST-IV did. I'm willing to give 'the JJ' a chance. He probably can't screw it up any worse than J. Frakes.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

scotpens said:


> IMHO, the best Trek movies to date are _ST II: The Wrath of Khan_ and _ST VI: The Undiscovered Country_, both directed by Nicholas Meyer. He has a real feel for the characters and the material


Agreed.

It's no accident both these pictures place Kirk in compelling, conflict filled situations in which the character's core values and beliefs are severely challenged (aging death cheater forced to face a no-win scenario for the first time, and aging cold warrior forced to accept a rapidly changing universe, respectively). 

Both the films can be pretty rough around the edges in spots (as pointed about above, the phaser-in-the-kitchen business is ludicrous), but they have something most other Trek installments lack: a good story.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Star Trek is a setting where stories are told, some with something important to say, some just for fun, but really more of a clearing house for inventive storytelling.
> 
> Star Wars *IS* the story. Side stories and gimickry tag along like remora on a really big shark, but Episodes I-VI all serve to service the overall story arc.
> 
> ...


A great analysis and I think you are on to something here (that the suits ignore). However, even if this is true it doesn't mean they should give up. Original thinking may be in order. There are some great writers and story tellers out there, just don't take the path of least resistance with this crap we've seen. 

Someone previously wrote about how corrupt Hollywood is, maybe it's how corrupt the ST producers are.

This thread started with a crappy leaked photo of 'Pike's shuttle'. I'm only disappointed because I expect better for all of Trek fans. Carson wrote that they pushed the schedule back because of the number of releases for this year. I hope so. Most of us would normally say something to the effect of "I don't care if it takes them 3-5 years, just do a good job". However, I've come to realize that in Hollywood it doesn't work out that way most of the time. The longer the schedule, the more screwed up the product. I would hate to see this become the 'rollerball' or 'Planet of the apes' of 2009 (both which suffered bad pushbacks in schedules despite the talent involved).



Carson Dyle said:


> ... but they have something most other Trek installments lack: a good story.


Darn straight!


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*On Death and Dying...*

Folks,

The difference between the "deaths" in the televised episodes of TREK and Spock's death in WOK are significant. Because of the nature of episodic television during the 1960s, the CHARACTERS on the show might have believed one of them had died during the course of the story, but the AUDIENCE didn't. They KNEW the "dead" character would eventually return by the end of the hour. How the series characters responded to said "deaths" enhanced the story and provided insight into those character we'd get under no other circumstances (as in THE THOLIAN WEB with Kirk's message to Spock and McCoy).

However, in WOK, not only do the characters grapple with the death of Spock, but the AUDIENCE does as well. We knew he wasn't coming back, unlike the episodes previously sited. That was the point of the story. This is why the film is so effective, because once again, the story plays out with great truth and dignity. It's a very human, very relevant tale, which would work in almost any medium, which also makes it a terrific Trek tale. 

Star Trek III however, dispenses with all credibility, from the ridiculously sophomoric secondary characters (Captain Styles, Kruge, Federation Security, Mr. Adventure, "Your Planet, Welcome") to the completely unbelievable idea of Spock's aging body on the Genesis planet to his McCoy-stored Katra completely restoring his personality. This wasn't even good pulp Science Fiction. Also, it was DUMB. 

The Klingons certainly never recovered from Trek III (until the later seasons of DS9 perhaps...).

Anyway, I'd have loved to see what Anthony Minghella or a Joseph L. Mankiewicz or a Billy Wilder might have done with Trek. Or let a current screenwriter like William Monahan, Aaron Sorkin, Chris McQuarrie or Frank Darabont take a crack at a script (one of the tragedies of this year is George Lucas' refusal to use Darabont's script for INDY IV, a film worst than even THE PHANTOM MENACE).

Heck, last weekend, I watched THE MOTION PICTURE with Andy Probert at a sci fi convention, doing live commentary, and I wished we'd even be getting that next year. For all of it's faults, the film expanded tremendously the scope of the Trek universe.

But we won't be.

We'll be getting TOP GUN mixed with any number of TNG episodes starring pale, modern-colored copies of the TOS cast.

And that's a shame. 

It's also a shame it's costing almost TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, because no Trek has even come close to recouping those costs on a global scale. It's still Star Trek after all...no matter how it's dressed up.

But as I said, I'll be first in line next May.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

bigjimslade said:


> This lack of genius shows up with the same problems in Star Wars as well. Lucas wrote an action story and some sequels, yet repeatedly tells the BS story that he wrote a Lord of the Rings and had to cut it down.
> 
> The reality is he did to great movies (IV & V). The the lack of ideas set in. Didn't we blow up a death star in IV? Wouldn't something new have been in order for VI? We had toy marketing run amok (Ewoks).


Bless you. Every time GL sits down for an interview and tries to convince the world that he had it (the Star Wars saga) all thought out beforehand, I want to scream. Next, he starts pontificating about "mythological motiffs," and attempts to turn Star Wars in to some great intellectual pursuit. BS in my opinion.
George, like Gene Roddenberry before him, should have stuck to creating the wonderful universes to play in, then hire really great writers to build stories within it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> ...shame it's costing almost TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, because no Trek has even come close to recouping those costs on a global scale.


Yeah, it's nuts. Paramount has a lot riding on a successful revival of this franchise, but given the hefty price tag it makes me wonder how much "success" they can afford.



mikephys said:


> Every time GL sits down for an interview and tries to convince the world that he had it (the Star Wars saga) all thought out beforehand, I want to scream.


You know what makes me want to scream? The ludicrous assertion that Lucas could spend five years of his life writing _Star Wars_ (a film inspired by episodic serials) without bothering to chase down his characters' back stories. The fact that GL first described the Ep III saber duel between Obi-wan and Vader to a Rolling Stone reporter in 1977 suggests to me he'd done a certain amount of homework. Did he have "the whole thing thought out beforehand." Of course not -- then again, I've never read or seen an interview with Lucas in which he's made such a claim.

Sorry to go even further OT, but Lucas deserves more credit for his storytelling abilities than some are willing to give him credit for.

BTW Robert, I wasn't crazy about the most recent _Indy_ installment either, but the notion that Lucas passed over a brilliant early draft in favor his own is bunk. I read the Darabont script, and it sucked.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I did not realize Meyer diredted VI as well as II (shows how much of a fan I am.) I would rate that as the 2nd best next to II. Maybe someone can explain why Harve Bennett and Meyer left.



mikephys said:


> Bless you. Every time GL sits down for an interview and tries to convince the world that he had it (the Star Wars saga) all thought out beforehand, I want to scream. Next, he starts pontificating about "mythological motiffs," and attempts to turn Star Wars in to some great intellectual pursuit. BS in my opinion.


Whenever I hear GL, my BS alarm goes off. One example oin the DVD commentaries involves Jabba the Hut. He claims that he had intented Jabba to be that big slug from the beginning (blah blah) but had to cut him out due to technical difficulties.

One of the best things about VI is the editing. It is cut for non-stop action. When you see the Jabba sequences added back in, you see why they were cut out in the first place: They simply replicate the Greedo/Solo bar scene. Adding Jabba does nothing and just drags down the story.

Isn't Jabba a fat man in the novelization? (I'm going back 30 years from memory of what was run in my local paper).

[I meant to mention time travel abuse in my original. Alternate universes is another. Another common to sci-fi shows is the need to bring back actors after their characters have been killed off.

In seein the reruns, I have to wonders who it was that was clamoring for Denise Crosby to come back (and at least 3 episodes).

]


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> Whenever I hear GL, my BS alarm goes off.



Oh, nevermind.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

RMBurnett said:


> Folks,
> 
> The difference between the "deaths" in the televised episodes of TREK and Spock's death in WOK are significant. Because of the nature of episodic television during the 1960s, the CHARACTERS on the show might have believed one of them had died during the course of the story, but the AUDIENCE didn't. They KNEW the "dead" character would eventually return by the end of the hour. How the series characters responded to said "deaths" enhanced the story and provided insight into those character we'd get under no other circumstances (as in THE THOLIAN WEB with Kirk's message to Spock and McCoy).
> 
> However, in WOK, not only do the characters grapple with the death of Spock, but the AUDIENCE does as well. We knew he wasn't coming back, unlike the episodes previously sited. That was the point of the story. This is why the film is so effective, because once again, the story plays out with great truth and dignity. It's a very human, very relevant tale, which would work in almost any medium, which also makes it a terrific Trek tale.


There's a little proviso to tack onto that assessment, Rob.

When test audiences saw an earlier cut of TWOK, without the shot of Spock's photon tube in the bushes, the audience left the theatre feeling like they'd just been to a funeral, and weren't exactly enthusiastic about the idea of seeing the film again. They liked it, but seeing Spock die rather horribly once is enough for one lifetime. Harve Bennett knew at that moment that if they put the film out like that, the Star Trek franchise was going to be as dead as Spock was at that moment.

So, over the objections of Nick Meyer, a second unit shot some lovely pictures of Spock's coffin the greenery, to at least offer up a slim bit of hope that Spock might be back in the next one (to bolster the semi-improvised "remember" bit).

So, in the interests of keeping the franchise afloat, certain dramatic sacrifices needed to be made.

Fast forward several years to Generations, and the idiotic decision to kill off Kirk. I'm of the opinion that _that_ one brain dead move did major damage to the fan support of Star Trek, since it was essentially Rick Berman telling the long time fans to go screw themselves, that their services would no longer be needed, and in case you missed it the first time, go screw yourselves.

I also happen to be one of the Bring Back Kirk supporters, and I don't care how it's done or how contrived it might seem to a drama professor, I want Generations undone as soon as possible, even better if it can be done retroactively. It's like Highlander II or Galactica 1980, it never should've been made and the sooner it's expunged from the record, the better.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> ...over the objections of Nick Meyer, a second unit shot some lovely pictures of Spock's coffin the greenery, to at least offer up a slim bit of hope that Spock might be back in the next one (to bolster the semi-improvised "remember" bit).
> 
> So, in the interests of keeping the franchise afloat, certain dramatic sacrifices needed to be made.


Although I'm not crazy about the way in which it was handled, foreshadowing the possibility of Spock's return at the end of TWOK was the dramatically correct move. Without it the contrivance of resurrecting Spock in the sequel would feel like an even bigger deus ex machina than it already does.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> You know what makes me want to scream? The ludicrous assertion that Lucas could spend five years of his life writing _Star Wars_ (a film inspired by episodic serials) without bothering to chase down his characters' back stories. The fact that GL first described the Ep III saber duel between Obi-wan and Vader to a Rolling Stone reporter in 1977 suggests to me he'd done a certain amount of homework. Did he have "the whole thing thought out beforehand." Of course not -- then again, I've never read or seen an interview with Lucas in which he's made such a claim.


Agreed. One has only to read the little "the story thus far" bit at the beginning of the novelization of the original film to see this. It describes what happens in the prequels (in broad strokes, to sure) pretty well. Sure, there are differences. In that little synopsis, the emperor is described more as an insulated figurehead who becomes controlled by his underlings, and that certainly changed quite a bit. But the gist is there.

And I have to be a voice of dissent as to Nicholas Meyer. Sure, _Wrath of Khan_ turned out very well. But listening to his commentary on the DVD, it is clear that had he not been restrained by others, he'd have made exactly the sort of canon-disregarding changes that drive so many fans crazy. I think he had too much freedom making the sixth film, and he didn't take it very seriously. Thus, while that one has lots of good stuff in it, it is hampered by all sorts of silliness and disservice to the established characters. And for me, at least, what's good about it isn't good enough to overcome what isn't. Of course, it initially seemed better than it is, coming on the heels of _Star Trek V_. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Carson and sbaxter:
I do agree with you on these points. However, I think very substantial, and unnecessary changes in the backstories of the characters were made in the prequels.
1. Anakin is the Jedi messiah, born via immaculate conception and destined "to bring balance to the force."
2. Anakin built C3PO. This would have been cool to have been at least alluded to in IV, V or VI, but seems to be a point added on by Lucas as he wrote the prequels.
3. Chewie as a high level member of the Wookie government or at least a high advisor in the Wookie military. Wouldn't have been cool if the rebel leaders in ROJ had stepped right past Han and asked Chewie's advice as to the attack plan on the second Death Star?
4. Yoda and Chewie were good pals in the prequels. It would have been nice to see that referenced in the original trilogy. 
(5. Interestingly, midichlorians did pop up in some of his story notes made the 70's!)

Just my opinion. I realize that GL didn't have all the scripts written in the 1970's, but he did say that he had the overall story laid out for nine movies. Apparently the strokes were very broad and not well defined at the time.

Peace.
Mike


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

mikephys said:


> Apparently the strokes were very broad and not well defined at the time.


I think Lucas can be forgiven for not having worked out the specific plot points of the entire saga in advance. It's hard enough to crack one good story, let alone six (or nine).

Mind you, as much as I admire what Lucas has accomplished, I'm not blind to the fact that he's occasionally been known to play fast and loose with the truth. That business about subsequently "matting in a monster" over the actor who played Jabba in "Star Wars" is a prime example (I don't know who Lucas thought he was fooling with that one). Given statements like that it's little wonder Lucas' fanboy detractors see duplicity and conspiracy behind every move the man makes (and, you know, it's not like these guys need additional reasons to despise their childhood raping nemesis).

Anyway, getting back to Trek...



sbaxter said:


> I have to be a voice of dissent as to Nicholas Meyer.
> SNIP
> I think he had too much freedom making the sixth film, and he didn't take it very seriously.


Hey, he took the characters a helluva lot more seriously than the creative geniuses behind _The Voyage Home_, a tediously pandering movie that shamelessly reduces our beloved TOS characters to campy caricatures of their former selves. Heck, one of the things I _like_ about Meyer is that he knew how to evoke big, operatic performances from his heroes and villains without crossing the line into parody. Sure he may have tweaked the canon purists a bit, but more than any other director he understood and respected what made TOS tick (it's the characters, dummy).


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Here's a point to ponder. 

The only two characters in Star Wars (ep 4) who seemingly know the whole story are the two non verbal ones. Chewie and R2. 

Now the fact that Obi-wan first met with Chewie in Mos Eisley _then_ Han is a point in Lucas' favor. But Chewie letting Han get away with dissing the Force when he fought along side Yoda and calling Obi-Wan an "old fossil" (Han's translation) points to Lucas not having the back stories worked out.

Tarkin calls the force an "ancient religion" (with the inference that it was dead and gone) yet it was still practiced a scant 15 years "ago". The equivilent of calling somebody a "yuppie" today.

and let's not get into the whole "your father's lightsaber...he wanted you to have it when you were old enough..." crap. Luke's father never even knew he was born. that was the whole idea. it was a lie on Obi-wan's part when it didn't need to be. Unless the back stories weren't worked out. 

It continues in Empire. If R2 and yoda remember each other (and they really should) then their whole relationship should have played out differently.

and then there is the brother/sister kissing. 

Nope Lucas didn't have it worked out to the extent he'd like you to think. he bowed to the pressure of having his most popular character (vader) become the central character and not his intended one (Luke)

He cashed in on the popularity of his masked or creature characters (Vader, Boba Fett , Chewie, the Droids, Yoda )to make sure he could jam them into as many movies as possible and therefore reap the merchandising at the expence of telling a epic, galaxy ranging story and instead turned it into one man's angsty family.

Of course, that's just my opinion.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> Hey, he took the characters a helluva lot more seriously than the creative geniuses behind _The Voyage Home_, a tediously pandering movie that shamelessly reduces our beloved TOS characters to campy caricatures of their former selves. Heck, one of the things I _like_ about Meyer is that he knew how to evoke big, operatic performances from his heroes and villains without crossing the line into parody. Sure he may have tweaked the canon purists a bit, but more than any other director he understood and respected what made TOS tick (it's the characters, dummy).


Granted. It wasn't really the canon stuff (in most cases) that bugged me -- after all, most of what he'd have done in that regard wasn't actually done. It's mostly the transparent plot contrivances and illogical bits of business that are little more than sight gags that bothers me, and takes away from the movie's strengths (which it certainly has). I have a hard time watching it these days, and I'm generally a fairly forgiving fan. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> The only two characters in Star Wars (ep 4) who seemingly know the whole story are the two non verbal ones. Chewie and R2. .


You’re giving Chewie too much credit. We have no reason to assume he knew Obi-Wan back in the day. Also, don’t put words in Chewie’s mouth. The “old fozzil” crack is Solo’s – a reaction prompted by Chewie grumbling about the fine mess Ben has led them into (hell, I’d grumble too). Under the circumstances I think Chewie can be forgiven for having doubts about Ben. Considering Chewie’s status as a supporting player, I know Lucas can be forgiven for not having traced this particular narrative thread.

As for “putting up” with Han dissing the Force, what do you expect Chewie to do? Deliver a sermon? It’s not like the Force has done much for him lately. Who could blame the old warrior if his faith in the Force had been shaken by recent events. He wouldn’t be the only one.



Lou Dalmaso said:


> Tarkin calls the force an "ancient religion" (with the inference that it was dead and gone) yet it was still practiced a scant 15 years "ago"


Given the Jedi genocide Tarkin’s remark is perfectly understandable. He simply doesn’t believe there’s anyone left who takes the Force seriously (we have no way of knowing what Tarkin makes of the Emperor’s spiritual beliefs, but given the technocratic, self-serving nature of Tarkin’s character I doubt it’s something he spends much time pondering).



Lou Dalmaso said:


> let's not get into the whole "your father's lightsaber...he wanted you to have it when you were old enough..." crap. Luke's father never even knew he was born. that was the whole idea. it was a lie on Obi-wan's part when it didn't need to be.


Look at it this way; Obi-Wan wants Luke to study the ways of the Force and become a Jedi. What better way to motivate him than to evoke the heroic, pre-Vaderized image of Luke’s Jedi Knight father? Seems logical to me (and as lies go, it’s a pretty noble one).



Lou Dalmaso said:


> It continues in Empire. If R2 and yoda remember each other (and they really should) then their whole relationship should have played out differently.


There’s no doubt Yoda would remember R2. The question is whether Yoda would want R2 to remember him. Under the circumstances I have no trouble believing Yoda would use Jedi mind tricks to short-circuit R2’s memory, if only to keep him blabbing to Luke about his father. Fortunately, this trivial exposition isn’t something Lucas felt the need to dwell on when he produced _Empire_.



Lou Dalmaso said:


> Nope Lucas didn't have it worked out to the extent he'd like you to think.


When Lucas asserts he had the basic story beats of his saga worked out in advance I don’t think he’s referring to the sort of micro-scale continuity t-crossing and i-dotting we’re amusing ourselves with here. Hell, most two hour movies don’t have the dots connected that tightly, let alone a twelve hour saga. 



Lou Dalmaso said:


> He cashed in on the popularity of his masked or creature characters (Vader, Boba Fett , Chewie, the Droids, Yoda )to make sure he could jam them into as many movies as possible and therefore reap the merchandising at the expence of telling a epic, galaxy ranging story and instead turned it into one man's angsty family.


I’m not sure I follow your logic here, but even if I did I still wouldn’t agree with it. 

:hat:

Even “epic, galaxy ranging stories” need focus, and “angsty families” have provided good fodder for drama as long as drama has existed (just ask Shakespeare).


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Carson,
you raise some good rebuttals,but i think my main assertion is still a good one, namely that Lucas (in a understandable effort to get his movie made) made some narrative assertions that are contradicted by later stories.

If he could have forseen how his original movie would be recieved, no doubt he would have changed dialog to match his original intended vision.

the problem is how murky his original vision was. Just as a drinking game, rewatch the original trilogy with his comentary on and take a drink everytime he uses the phrase "What the story is really about..." You'd be surprised how many times it comes up.

what I meant about the masked characters and creatures was that, by focusing on those, he did not have to negociate with actors for their likeness rights. and should an actor balk, he could replace them. not so with the human characters. when it comes down to it, anybody could have played Boba Fett. and rather than come up with new likable characters for the second trilogy, Lucas took the lazy way out and stuck in 3PO and R2 into a situation that created a whole stack of logical paradoxes.

I'm glad you brought up the Emperor. Certainly you don't get put in charge of the Death Star without an interview. Tarkin would have to have known about Palpatine's power, yet he say that Vader is all that's left of "that ancient Religion"

I don't even think the word "Sith" came into play till after the first movie or it would have been used as it should have been to describe Vader rather than calling him a Jedi.

I'm just sayin'


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> If he (Lucas) could have forseen how his original movie would be recieved, no doubt he would have changed dialog to match his original intended vision.'


Well, you know Lou, it's still not too late...



Lou Dalmaso said:


> Just as a drinking game, rewatch the original trilogy with his comentary on and take a drink everytime he uses the phrase "What the story is really about..." You'd be surprised how many times it comes up.


If nothing else it would make _The Phantom Menace_ easier to watch.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Okay, if the above detour into LucasLand didn't kill this thread, _nothing_ will!

:freak:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

so , anyway, about that shuttle/troop carrier...


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

Wouldn't it be funny if, after all this, that original picture turned out NOT to be related to the new Trek in any way? OK, *I* think it would be funny, but then, it doesn't take a lot to amuse me...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lol.

Given what I've seen, it would rank as one of the most elaborate hoaxes in film history.

Knowing JJ Abrams, I wouldn't put it past him.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I don't even think the word "Sith" came into play till after the first movie or it would have been used as it should have been to describe Vader rather than calling him a Jedi.


Whether it always meant what it means now is a different question, but I remember many references to Vader as "Lord of the Sith" in the initial gush of promotional materials (posters, T-shirts and the like) right after the first movie exploded into a national craze. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Lol.
> 
> Given what I've seen, it would rank as one of the most elaborate hoaxes in film history.
> 
> Knowing JJ Abrams, I wouldn't put it past him.


Ahhhhh. One of the reason's I couldn't get too upset about the shuttle's appearance was because I figured it might change radically with some CGI(a thing not unknown in Abrams films). I'm guessing that post put that theory to rest?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

While not official, this is a fan extrapolation of what the Enterprise from the new film may look like.










Original Thread here...

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=51129


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Kinda sorta, but the profile appears way too stubby. 

If it was me I'd take a bigger scoop out of the fantail, and increase the overall length and width of the engines.

You know, streamline the thing a bit, like it shows in the teaser...


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The saucer and engineering hull are actually pretty close to the TOS version. But WTF is with those nacelles? They look like something from Buck Rogers with 1960 Dodge fins stuck on backwards. And the front part looks vaguely phallic (but then, I have a dirty mind). Are they supposed to be a joke?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Behave yourself, it's just a fan "extrapolation." Considering how little the guy had to go on it's not half bad.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Probably make the secondary hull more rounded too, like the refit, and the engine pylons more beefy and swept back slightly.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Beef up the strongback and sweep it back, a la Jefferies concept sketches for _Phase Two_.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Except for the warp nacelles, I could live with this ship.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Interesting to note the "allen wrench hole" on the shuttle nacelle is repeated on the "E" nacelle.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

While that is an commendable and exemplary piece of artwork, woe unto us if that's what it 1701 turns out to be.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Although I'm not crazy about the way in which it was handled, foreshadowing the possibility of Spock's return at the end of TWOK was the dramatically correct move. Without it the contrivance of resurrecting Spock in the sequel would feel like an even bigger deus ex machina than it already does.


Yeh, it's kinda like the cut shot of Darth Vader near the end of Star Wars showing his fighter is out of control -- paving the way for him to appear in a sequel.

Never mind. I forget. It was intended from the start that the series would be about Vader.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Except for the warp nacelles, I could live with this ship.


A good observation. At first glance this looks terrible, like something out of Japanese Anime. When you look closely, it's only the ungainly warp engines that make it look bad. The rest of the components are quite well done.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Interesting extrapolation. Except for the nacelles, this would be better (i.e. truer to the original) than I would ever have expected.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lol, if you guys have a problem with the size and shape of the nacelles found on this extrapolation I can't wait to hear your comments re: the final design.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Have you seen the final design?

Huzz


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

If the final movie version is within 20% of this extrapolation (which is a commendable effort, by the way – based on what little imagery is currently available from the actual film), I will be happy. And I've been a die-hard fan since '66. Nice work. How such a version of the 1701 is characterized is, however, nearly as important as the look of the thing.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Have you seen the final design?


Dave, you should know better.










Note well the configuration of the strongback as depicted in the center profile above.

Despite what some will think of the final design, the concept illustrators working on T-XI have at least done their homework.

EDIT: Obviously that's a Matt Jefferies _Phase II_ sketch and NOT a design produced for the upcoming feature.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Carson, while I understand you cannot show us the final design, do you know about what timeframe we will all possibly see it?


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Lol, if you guys have a problem with the size and shape of the nacelles found on this extrapolation I can't wait to hear your comments re: the final design.
> 
> Suffice it to say the version shown above is tame by comparison.


Carson, may I take this opportunity to express the following...

*You Suck*

(Just kidding). I'm glad not knowing the actual design but hate the tease ... 

This may be better asked off-line but what work have you done in the past with others (your reference earlier)?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Wow, that fan interpretation is... well I have to say it... *UGLY.* All of the proportional grace and poise of the original ship is utterly gone. It looks fat, unbalanced and cartoonishly caricatured. Certainly the person is a fine artist, but a poor designer.


Sorry, it had to be said.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Carson, while I understand you cannot show us the final design, do you know about what timeframe we will all possibly see it?


Like a lot of people, I'd assumed the big reveal would occur later this month at ComicCon. Thing is, as far as I know, Paramount Marketing isn't planning to show_ anything_ at ComicCon. The reason is fairly simple: the FX aren't done, and the studio has learned the hard way to NEVER show _Trek_ fans unfinished work. 

In the past studio marketing departments have occasionally footed the overtime bill to have someone like ILM rush an FX sequence in order to meet a publicity deadline. In this instance however Paramount probably feels it's not worth the considerable extra expense to do so (let's face it, the people who go to ComicCon will go see this movie in any event, if only to be able to say how much they hated it). 

The wild card here is JJ Abrams. Rumor has it he's going to ComicCon, and he can pretty much do whatever he wants. If feels like slapping a big image of the _Enterprise_ up on the screen then, well, that's his call. 

We'll find out soon enough.



hubert said:


> I'm glad not knowing the actual design but hate the tease ...


I understand.

This could cost me my job, but to tide you over here's a conceptual prototype of the new Enterprise shuttle. 










You saw it here first!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

That is a BLATANT copy of Ron Cobb's Lifeboat design from "Alien"!!

What are they thinking??!!


Tee hee!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> This could cost me my job, but to tide you over here's a conceptual prototype of the new Enterprise shuttle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


O Gawd! The inhumanity! Why must Paramount execs dig up poor ol' Gene every few years and pass around the KY jelly?

The "blockiness" of the design is obviously the Paramount suits subliminally saying, "All Trek fans are whiny blockheads!"


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

You know what would be sweet?

back in the day there was that one publicity/studio picture that was used for posters and whatnot, the cast gathered around Kirk in the big chair on the bridge. I mostly remember it in black and white. but it was about the only image that they used (other than the K/S two shots)

What would be sweet if JJ staged an "Homage" pic of the new cast in the same pose on the new bridge and made it available at comic-con as a teaser.

I mean, we already know who's in the cast. what this would do is to "debut" the new uniforms and tease a bit of the bridge, while giving "props" to the classic series. No costly effects need to be generated, and the appetite is whetted.

my dream and welcome to it


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, I knew that bootleg shot of the new shuttle reminded me of something, and it finally dawned on me what it was…


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> This could cost me my job, but to tide you over here's a conceptual prototype of the new Enterprise shuttle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats a freak'n awesome design! Look at that detail. Put some pods on the side and we'll come full circle. No problem from this cannonite!

I do really agree with the earlier comment - The Enterprise was artfully shown but badly designed. It has lost much of the original beauty. Again, those lopsided nacelles... Oh well.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> What would be sweet if JJ staged an "Homage" pic of the new cast in the same pose on the new bridge and made it available at comic-con as a teaser.


I suspect there'll be some sort of cast-in-costume reveal at ComicCon. Maybe not the specific homage you're envisioning, but something close to it.



hubert said:


> The Enterprise was artfully shown but badly designed.


Obviously you're not a Steampunk fan.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Obviously you're not a Steampunk fan.


Actually, I am but you are right on. Steampunk is what this reminds me of.


*I do like how someone finally shows some scale with their drawing however*

*Notice the scale 'person' on the bow.*


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I heard the new Enterprise design was somewhat influenced by the Phase II design.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, I knew that bootleg shot of the new shuttle reminded me of something, and it finally dawned on me what it was…


Will Pee-Wee Herman provide the voice of the computer? 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I don't think I would have as much of a problem with a Phase II version as I do with something that looks like Koerner's abomination, except that the Phase II design in and of itself, isn't really that great either, IMHO. Seemed to be an attempt to "70s" the earlier design and remove some of the more so-called "dated" aspects of the TOS 1701, like the radar dish deflector.

The problem here, though, is _precedence._ There already is a classic ship design, deeply rooted in our culture and well-established worldwide for generations, as the critical source of _every_ design that has come since.... anything at all that looks different, even if its good, will also be considered a derivitive of that classic icon. Updated, rebooted, freshened up, whatever you want to call it... its not the Enterprise, its something else. 

To me, and a hell of a lot of other fans, there is and always will be *one*, and _only_ one, NCC-1701. I can tolerate them replacing the actors far more than I can them replacing the Enterprise with some souped-up, star wars-ized, over paneled, militarized, Xtreeme edition (tm). And I don't hold out hope on the actors very much either... just to know where I stand.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I agree on that. If they are going to change it, then they have a prebuilt design already: Pilot 1 -the exact difference between Pike's and Kirk's ship. 

Change the actors fine, but the ship is one character that, while it could perhaps use some gloss, is really just about perfect the way it is/was. 

They could comp the the ship right out of the Smithsonian into every shot and I would be relatively happy (though the most recent mods made in the 'restorations' over the years are far too amped up, imo. Colors ar etoo punchy from the pix I've seen. Not subtle at all. But 10,000 watts of studio lighting could compensate for that...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I don't know about the other actors (Carson can chime in here) but Simon Pegg (Mr. Scott) is not only highly talented but is a TOS fan too! How could we fans ask for more? This new project doesn't send shivers of excitement up my leg (sorry Chris Mathews) but I don't believe in criticizing just for the sake of it. I've seen their Shuttlecraft and don't like it, seen the new "E" and don't like it and have some other insights (that I won't share because I signed a non-disclosure agreement too) but I've not seen the performances and I have no problem with new actors playing the parts, as long as they are suited to the roles. If anything, seeing new talent playing the parts is possibly the only thing that I would look forward to in this Trek outing.

Phil


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

> ...and have some other insights (that I won't share because I signed a non-disclosure agreement too)


Yah, NDA's are tricky bastards. (I think it could even be possible to breach a non-competition clause too depending on how things are worded, maybe.) 

Not only can breaking an NDA get one fired, it can get one entirely blackballed out of the industry. Who is going to hire someone they can't trust to keep a secret? One might get away with bending/breaking one NDA, even two, but word spreads fast in small circles.

A few mins ago I was thinking opinions of stuff we're working on can't be covered by an NDA as they are personal opinions. Now that I ponder further, even a personal opinion, good or bad, publicly expressed about any part of any film could be deemed just cause for persecution as the studio could deem it infringement and go after anyone they like. They have the money afterall.

I'm now wondering if even saying one is working on any particular film is borderline cause. Sure, the entire industry knows who has what show, what parts of what show and even the majors working on what shots and when, but as the teeming masses likely have no way to know these things, we technically can't share that info. Perhaps unless it's leaked by the Hollywood Reporter or some such. Then the cat's out of the bag, but an individual could still catch flack up until the release date is my bet.

Even more technically, where i'm at, we are not even supposed to talk about a show with co-workers on different shows -even though you may walk past, or sit next to their desk and see exactly what they are doing all the time.

And no, I can't say where I'm at or what show I am or am not working on (as of yesterday) or what I think or don't think of what I may or may not have seen so far. I don't think.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

How about a general question, then....how close is that pic to the actual redesign?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Just had a look at IMDB and there is some interesting public info to be gleaned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/?c=1

'Corporate Headquarters'.

Vulcan Bully 1, 2 and 3. 

Romulans.

George Samuel Kirk.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Model Man said:


> I agree on that. If they are going to change it, then they have a prebuilt design already: Pilot 1 -the exact difference between Pike's and Kirk's ship.


So you want to use design elements that the original creators decided were mistakes when they went into production?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> The problem here, though, is _precedence._ There already is a classic ship design, deeply rooted in our culture and well-established worldwide for generations, as the critical source of _every_ design that has come since.... anything at all that looks different, even if its good, will also be considered a derivitive of that classic icon. Updated, rebooted, freshened up, whatever you want to call it... its not the Enterprise, its something else.


Somebody has to say it....

This is complete nonsense!

I am a die hard Trek fan and I have no problems with them changing a design that is quite frankly outdated IMHO. Opinions like the above is why it is so hard to create a Trek film. There are people already stating that they will not see the film because of a shuttle design!! 

Good God people, as Shatner once said...Get a life


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Raist3001 said:


> Somebody has to say it....
> 
> This is complete nonsense!
> 
> ...



So using your logic, they can make a movie about the Wright Brothers first flight and use a Lear Jet instead because quite frankly, the design of the Wright Flyer is outdated?........

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> So using your logic, they can make a movie about the Wright Brothers first flight and use a Lear Jet instead because quite frankly, the design of the Wright Flyer is outdated?........
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


No, it doesn't, because the Wright plane is real life object in history, not a fictional spacecraft from the 1960s. And besides, a real life event was reimagined in the form of the movie 300, which was quite good.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> How about a general question, then....how close is that pic to the actual redesign?


Honestly, it's pretty far from the mark -- both proportionally, and also in terms of the surface details. Whatever else one thinks of the new design, there's nothing boiler-plated or Steampunked about it.

I wish I could say more, but as others have pointed out, it's not the sort of thing that's worth risking a career over.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PixelMagic said:


> No, it doesn't, because the Wright plane is real life object in history, not a fictional spacecraft from the 1960s. And besides, a real life event was reimagined in the form of the movie 300, which was quite good.


The model of the Enterprise is a real life object in history as well, take a look at the Air and Space Museum.. it is in the same collection alongside 1:1 air/spacecraft. It may represent an imagined craft of the future, but she *does* exist.

Real life history or not, the Enterprise is well established in the modern lexicon. As easily recognized and identifiable as Abraham Lincoln, The Great Wall of China or the Pyramids at Gaza. How about we go back and reimagine Star Wars using a Borg Cube for the Death Star? I'd wager the reaction would be the same, if not worse... just ask the CGI Jabba George inserted into episode IV.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be refined to a certain extent, but I do think the changes should not be drastic, like the oversized art deco drink blenders they intend to call the warp engines.

I do not like what I see there, yet on the other hand I do like the saucer section where you can see hints of what will come to be with the refit. 

Moderate design changes should be the key here.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Say you were updating _Forbidden Planet_ for a contemporary audience. Would you upgrade Robby, or leave him as he appears in the original?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Apples and kumquats. There wasn't a "Forbidden Planet" tv series followed by five spinoff series, all of which made references back to the original film and its designs.

Now, if we're just talking a remake of one, isolated film, yeah, we can have some fun in that regard. Personally, I'd leave Robby alone. The ship, on the other hand...


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Even more so, would you make the C57D anything other than a smooth silver saucer? 

It's a classic design that works even today. Look at the Air Force's concept work. Jet engines and exhaust are as un-futuristic and short sighted as a horseless carriage on the highway. Today's Memory Metal outdates everything you see in 'modern' sci-fi. All Sci-fi ships ceased to be futuristic awhile ago. The entire genre needs a fundamental shift in thinking.

How did the Jupiter 2 launch back in the '60's? On (effectively) a cone of laser light. That's forward thinking. That's vision from fifty years ago that still harkens to our near future and the laser propulsion testing being done at Los Alamos today. How did the 're-imagined' J2 launch? On idiotic flame and smoke. Which version of the 'show' lasted longer? Which is more classic? Which is more futuristic?

There is conceptually more futuristic sci-fi thinking that occurred back in the 1950's than sixty years later. I think today we suffer from pointless over-greebliefication. If 'blame' were to be assigned, I guess 2001 would be it followed closely by SW, then the aztecing of STTMP. Sure it looks very cool, but it has blinded our vision. 

The smooth hulls of the original Trek ships are futuristic. The movie trailer shots of guys welding? Please. I truly hope that was just for the trailer to say the movie is being put together and not an actual shot in the film.

As for Robots, Robbie is a cool design, though he could use a modern does of dexterity. But I'll take the original B-9 over that newer monstrosity anyday. (I will say that is also a function of childhood nostalgia at work.)

IMO, of course.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

The original 1701 shattered all space ship conceptions before it, while still using the same fundamental shapes: a flying saucer with three rocket ships attached. The Romulan BoP? Same thing. The D-7 was the first truly 'alien' design ever witnessed. All else has followed from there. 

To get back to the shuttle sneak peak, jet engines on a craft built in a day where anti-grav tech is common is bad design.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

What is _Forbidden Planet_? I'm only 24 years old. Be kind. 

Nevermind, I looked it up. Yeah, all of those designs would most certainly have to be updated for today's audiences. You can't use scifi from the 60s and say it still looks like a plausible future. If you think you can, you are just kidding yourself. Even The Next Generation is starting to look dated, and that's the Star Trek I grew up on.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Say you were updating _Forbidden Planet_ for a contemporary audience. Would you upgrade Robby, or leave him as he appears in the original?


Leave Robby alone - he was good enough to not only have a staring role in a movie, but guest shots on various TV programs - anyone remember his LIS appearance to name one?

Classic lines should be left as is - heck I'd even leave the C57-D alone if remaking FP

Atlantis (Ken)


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Captain April said:


> ..."Forbidden Planet"...
> ...The ship, on the other hand...


Ever see Syd Mead's designs from the illfated remake?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348225/in/set-72057594137093529/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348224/in/set-72057594137093529/

Never got to see his Robby, would be interesting to see his take.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

lunadude said:


> Ever see Syd Mead's designs from the illfated remake?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348225/in/set-72057594137093529/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348224/in/set-72057594137093529/
> 
> Never got to see his Robby, would be interesting to see his take.



http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/LR_Shuttle-1.html(Probert)

Yeah, compare that to these designs for the "re-imagined" shuttle for STTMP. Probert did the best he could in the time frame he had (just out of school)
but you have to miss Syd Mead's or Ralph McQuarrie's attention to design and detail. Again, you know what I'm going to say; why don't we ever see this kind of work done ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heilemann/sets/152728(McQuarrie)


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

New "Star Trek" Cast Photos...

Spock looks right on...

http://trekmovie.com/2008/07/17/preview-of-star-trek-comic-posters-with-first-cast-photos/#more-2175


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Model Man said:


> There is conceptually more futuristic sci-fi thinking that occurred back in the 1950's than sixty years later. I think today we suffer from pointless over-greebliefication. If 'blame' were to be assigned, I guess 2001 would be it followed closely by SW, then the aztecing of STTMP.


While our perception of what constitutes "futuristic" is shaped in part by the movies, real life plays a more significant role.

At some point in the mid-70’s it dawned on audiences that the bright, shiny, seamless future as envisioned by the pulps, movies, the `64 World’s Fair, etc. was never going to come to pass – at least not in the bubble-domed, Cadillac-finned, blinky-lighted style they’d been promised. Art imitates life, and one look at the Apollo capsule after re-entry was all people needed in order to come to the conclusion that space travel was a decidedly grungy, un-streamlined business. Almost overnight “futuristic” icons like the Von Braun wheel and TWA Moonliner came to symbolize the exact opposite of what their designers had intended; they became emblems of our naïve early/mid-20th century concept of the future. They became relics of the past -- beloved relics maybe, but relics nonetheless. 

I grew up on TOS, and it’s still the only incarnation of Trek I have any emotional investment in. The Enterprise from that series is by far my favorite of the vessel’s various incarnations. Its design is beautiful, its pop cultural significance is indisputable, and its place in the Smithsonian is well earned. And as much as I wish it was immune from contemporary biases of what constitutes “dated,” I confess I’m one of those heathens for whom the TOS Enterprise represents mankind’s past more than it does his future. Like the Seaview, like Thunderbird II, like the Jupiter II, the TOS Enterprise is a great design, but one which evokes the 20th century more the 23rd century.

Based on the above you might think I'm in favor of changing the TOS design for Trek XI, but nothing could be further from the truth. Some things are sacred, and this is one of them. If there was ever an instance in which I wish a filmmaker had ignored pre-conceived audience attitudes and dared to go retro, this is it. Alas, that sort of decision requires a lot of artistic confidence; more perhaps than second-time-director JJ Abrams was able to muster (although, to Abram's credit, the costumes are very close to the original TOS designs -- as we're now beginning to see).


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

USS Atlantis said:


> Leave Robby alone - he was good enough to not only have a staring role in a movie, but guest shots on various TV programs - anyone remember his LIS appearance to name one?


Two LIS appearances, actually... once in the first season and once in the third. And while I agree that Robbie is a classic design and possibly the coolest robot in the history of movies, if they ever DO a remake of Forbidden Planet (and God, I hope not) I'd imagine that Robbie would be one of the first things changed. Look what they did to the Robot in the Lost In Space movie!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> New "Star Trek" Cast Photos...
> Spock looks right on...


He sure does. Almost eerily so.

Seems a little odd they chose to use Kirk, Spock, and _Uhura?_

McCoy or Scotty would have seemed a more obvious choice.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Seems a little odd they chose to use Kirk, Spock, and _Uhura?_


That's purely a marketing decision. 

Star Trek has a rep of being the most geeky, least sexy thing on Earth. Don't ask me why. The intent is to challenge that perception with Uhura who, it is hoped, will appeal to both men and women.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> So using your logic, they can make a movie about the Wright Brothers first flight and use a Lear Jet instead because quite frankly, the design of the Wright Flyer is outdated?........
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


Ok...first of all we are talking about a fictional ship REPRESENTED in the Air and Space Museum. Not actual history. No sir, the Enterprise does not exist 

Now, I agree that subtle changes is all that is needed in creating a new Enterprise, and that the warp nacelles of the shared possible design in this thread are just not right. However, with that said, one can hardly expect to see the same bridge, or same corridors, or same instruments, or any same interiors. They are outdated. These elements must be updated if the film is to be taken seriously in my opinion. I mean, how serious can you take a film set in the future where timers are displayed as scrolling numbers on a wheel? Or your navigational helm is made of flashing push/turn buttons? Or your view screens are picture tubes?

What we are getting is a Star Trek for the new millennium. Just as Burton's Batman was a Batman of the 90's. As Batman Begins is a Batman of today. How seriously could we take a film that depicted a man running around in blue tights? We are getting a Star Trek that if envisioned today would be what we will see in 2009. 

If I want to see classic Trek, I simply need to do no more than curl up on my couch, insert a few DVD's and enjoy my favorite characters and ship on the small screen. No one, or no new film can take this away from me. In 2009, I will be in theaters hopefully to enjoy a film that attempts to re imagine the classic series for a whole new generation.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

>Seems a little odd they chose to use Kirk, Spock, and Uhura?

And what about poor old Dr. Piper??? Don't see him int he cast list anywhere...

>one can hardly expect to see the same bridge, or same corridors, or same instruments, or any same interiors. They are outdated. ... What we are getting is a Star Trek for the new millennium. 

If you guys are worried about the outside of the ship...

>Syd Mead
There are concept artists, art directors, production designers and then there is Syd Mead. I was doubtful the c57d could be made better, but Syd took his pens and captured the spirit of the ship beautifully in that concept work. Smooth, streamlined, big and very heavy looking. Look at that gantry! Wow.

...

Folks, I guess the basic thing to accept is that we can only hope they pay as much homage to the original design as possible. can't say I was thrilled about the refit, but that grew on me over a few viewings and by TWOK, well, she was a beauty in my eyes (then they gave me Reliant and upped the anty w/Excelsior (drool)). 

We can bitch and moan as much as possible, but in the end we have to let go of what was and take a look at what is. And if what is is not all that great, just pass and cherish the memories of what was. This one will nail the coffin, dose it w/ a shot of adrenalin or fully revive franchise (I like to cover my bets  )

IF the new movie is junk, it will go in the dustbin of history like every other bad trek movie and series and episode. 

The only challenge this movie has is whether it could be worse than STV or better than ST I or II. I hope it will fall into the upper range and doubt it could beat those first two (or be worse than V, but you never know). Until it shows itself it has a serious danger of being in the lower categories. I prefer to expect the worse. That way I am usually pleasantly surprised and rejoice more when things turn out great.

Only screen time will prove things one way or the other and this movie will sink or swim based on plot points alone (gulp). But I strongly suspect that what we will get is best considered one of those pesky parallel universes. In which case all bets are off and what we get is what we get. The cast list quite clearly says Nimoy as Spock and mentions Romulans. Well, you know your ST history and I won't elaborate further on that. I do think Memory Alpha is about to get wiped.

LL&P.


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

Model Man said:


> The only challenge this movie has is whether it could be worse than STV or better than ST I or II. I hope it will fall into the upper range and doubt it could beat those first two (or be worse than V, but you never know).


You know, some friends and I figured out a way to look at ST-V as the BEST ST Movie! Think of it this way...

William Shatner got his fellow actors together and got Paramount to pay for the best and most expensive Star Trek PARODY ever made!:woohoo:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> What we are getting is a Star Trek for the new millennium. Just as Burton's Batman was a Batman of the 90's.


Yeah, I think what some people are afraid of. 



Jaruemalak said:


> William Shatner got his fellow actors together and got Paramount to pay for the best and most expensive Star Trek PARODY ever made!:woohoo:


It's called _The Voyage Home_.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> Now, I agree that subtle changes is all that is needed in creating a new Enterprise, and that the warp nacelles of the shared possible design in this thread are just not right. However, with that said, one can hardly expect to see the same bridge, or same corridors, or same instruments, or any same interiors. They are outdated. These elements must be updated if the film is to be taken seriously in my opinion. I mean, how serious can you take a film set in the future where timers are displayed as scrolling numbers on a wheel? Or your navigational helm is made of flashing push/turn buttons? Or your view screens are picture tubes?


You mean like the re-imagined navigational helm 10 years later in STTMP that had a damn Throttle on it or an expansive, bland, captain's quarters complete with sliding glass doors or sets (i.e. Rec Deck) that look far more dated today than from a series a decade prior? No thank you!! Anytime you stray away too far that seems to be the crap we're given. 

That doesn't I disagree completely. The difference was subtle in TOS. How often did you see a 'closeup' of any of that equipment back then? Rarely. I still think TOS looks great overall. Lesson learned (for me at least) - It didn't matter what was shown from distant shots (ship interior details) but you better spend your time if you ever dare show a close up (ie. your timers, circuit boards, captains' chair switches, etc).


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> . . . I mean, how serious can you take a film set in the future where timers are displayed as scrolling numbers on a wheel? Or your navigational helm is made of flashing push/turn buttons?


That rotating-drum chronometer on the helm/nav console gave me a giggle even back in the ’60s. It looked like the odometer on a car -- and today, even those have gone digital.

However, analog dials, pushbuttons, rocker switches and mechanical slider controls have a decided advantage over "futuristic" touch panels. It's a lot easier to make mistakes with a touch screen, as anyone knows who's used a modern ATM or pay-point terminal. On a quasi-military vessel, in the heat of battle or any other situation requiring split-second action, you don't want to be the one to say "Oops"!


Raist3001 said:


> Or your view screens are picture tubes?


In the original series, all the ship's viewscreens had images either optically matted in or rear-projected on the set. Captain Pike's quarters in "The Cage" had what looked like a 20th-century television screen, but no picture appeared on it.

[IMG-LEFT]http://ashmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/zoe_saldana2.jpeg[/IMG-LEFT]



PhilipMarlowe said:


> . . . Seems a little odd they chose to use Kirk, Spock, and *Uhura?*


Uh. . . You're not GAY, are you? :jest:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

hubert said:


> Anytime you stray away too far that seems to be the crap we're given.


I guess your right. Let's take all that was in the 60's and put it up on screen because everything that has come since is just 'crap'.

It's a wonder any new Star Trek films are made really.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

scotpens said:


> In the original series, all the ship's viewscreens had images either optically matted in or rear-projected on the set. Captain Pike's quarters in "The Cage" had what looked like a 20th-century television screen, but no picture appeared on it.


I think he was referring to the small monitors we saw throughout the ship. In the '60s, these looked futuristic. "Wow, they have tiny TV screens on their desks." If you used these CRT style monitors in a modern movie, the audience would think, "Why are they using outdated technology?" 

Which is the whole point of this discussion. When it comes to film design on a film like this, everything has one purpose: To make the audience believe we are 250 years in the future. If something distracts from that, it is bad design, even if it has already been "established."

And for those who'd like a retro design. Can anyone name one movie that used a "retro" look that was successful financially? If you want to see that, don't expect any studio to invest $100+ million on it.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Apples and kumquats. There wasn't a "Forbidden Planet" tv series followed by five spinoff series, all of which made references back to the original film and its designs.


Actually, there was. It was called STAR TREK.

TREK was essentially FORBIDDEN PLANET, THE SERIES. Most of the changes were either to make it work as a weekly series (a larger, faster ship; aliens) or to correct obvious limitations in imagination (a "United Earth" ship crewed entirely by white men).


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> I think he was referring to the small monitors we saw throughout the ship.


That is correct sir.



BEBruns said:


> When it comes to film design on a film like this, everything has one purpose: To make the audience believe we are 250 years in the future. If something distracts from that, it is bad design, even if it has already been "established."


Give this man a cigar!!

Best response on this topic I have read in awhile. 

As much as I love my classic Trek, the technology found in TOS is just not believable from the standpoint of being over 200 years in the future. It may have in the 60's, but not today.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Raist3001 said:


> Now, I agree that subtle changes is all that is needed in creating a new Enterprise, and that the warp nacelles of the shared possible design in this thread are just not right. However, with that said, one can hardly expect to see the same bridge, or same corridors, or same instruments, or any same interiors. They are outdated. These elements must be updated if the film is to be taken seriously in my opinion. I mean, how serious can you take a film set in the future where timers are displayed as scrolling numbers on a wheel? Or your navigational helm is made of flashing push/turn buttons? Or your view screens are picture tubes?


I'm afraid that I agree. We probably won't see Spock flipping toggle switches on his computer console or listening to a robotic computer voice with teletype noises in the background either. Star Trek is about the characters, their relationships and their personal evolution. If JJ can get that to work, I will love the movie.

Given that, I think the Enteprise (the model, not the interior sets) is a character herself. If they want to do minor updates the surface finish, the deflector dish, and the nacelle caps fine, but then leave the rest the heck alone!!! And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> I guess your right. Let's take all that was in the 60's and put it up on screen because everything that has come since is just 'crap'.


Glad you see it my way :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Raist3001 said:


> As much as I love my classic Trek, the technology found in TOS is just not believable from the standpoint of being over 200 years in the future. It may have in the 60's, but not today.


Which is an interesting situation considering that the 60's series spawned much of the technology that we use and take for granted now - just over forty years later.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think there's no doubt that one of the reasons the original show has been so successful and influential is it was extremely smart and imaginative at creating a convincing future world. It's no failure to say that forty years later it's not 100% convincing as a look 250 years into the future. It did anticipate and influence some of today's technology which is a pretty impressive achievement.

I'm of two minds as far as this is concerned--since "canon" explicitly references historical events that occur on the show in the 1990s and clearly didn't occur in OUR 1990s, it's reasonable to look at Trek as an alternate history--where our space race took us on a much quicker trip to the stars than we're ever likely to achieve (although 250 years is still a long time from now). In that sense you can look at Trek's "look" and technology just like films like Brazil or Sky Captain where technology moved along a different path and some technologies we see as outdated make it into the future.

The problem is explaining something like that to a movie audience (ironically Abrams' film, with its apparent multiple timelines, might do just that). To have the film make sense to anyone outside hardcore Trekkies, it's more logical to do a serious attempt to make the film futuristic as that concept would read to an audience that has iphones, GPS and other technologies that classic Trek would have considered quite futuristic.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

How does the use of CRT displays prove that the design of the ship must change? You are talking about very minor textural detail points of the original designs. Not going to see Spock "flipping toggle switches" are we? Go back and take a closer look at that shot of the interior of the new "Shuttlecraft", the instruments contain WWII vintage mil-spec toggle switches that were deemed too primitive looking even for TOS! At least TOS found some that looked more "modern". Since everyone is so concerned about the look of the TOS instrumentation, go back and take a look at what passes for flight controls in the "Star Wars" ships. They have square pieces of plastic glued to their Masonite consoles instead of hemispheres. Yup, thats "advanced" all right. Oh yes, they also have no displays screens of any type, CRT, MFDU, LCD or Plasma. How do the audiences stand it? One can only wonder.

The people who have posted here so passionately that TOS "must be updated" seem to be talking about the design of the ship itself, yet when pressed for specifics, they bring up "switch design" on the consoles. WTF?

When it comes to instrumentation design, the only thing that needs to be changed on the original Bridge is the addition of flat screen displays. How difficult is it to change the blinking multi-light panels around the perimeter into multi-purpose flat screens? They could have displays that rotate between purposes, occasionally showing us the displays that are familiar to us from TOS, interspersed with many other new ones. Those of you who think that touch screens are "futuristic" know nothing of instrumentation design. Different types of switches are selected for different purposes and because they offer different level of functional control, typically based on how important the given function is. Not because they "look cool". Until such time as there is a direct interface between the human brain and a given control system, "toggle switches" and all the others will continue to be with us.

BTW, no science fiction film yet has shown anything close to the kind of technological "future" we can already see today, even from our limited vantage point. Much less one 250 years into the future. Not one. Each given film might show-case the effects of one possible technology but no one has shown us the future where all the concepts and projections have been integrated. And "space warfare"? Everything we've seen to date has shown us little more that WWI dogfights between Brown & Von Richtoffen. In fact, they look no better than the original "Buck Rogers" or "Flash Gordon" serials. Well, OK, they have gotten rid of the "sky" backdrops so I guess that is an improvement. Otherwise, talk about "retro", "Star Wars", "Star Trek" and all these other films are down-right embarrassing when it comes to presentations of space combat. "Retro" indeed. (BTW, "GPS" was already installed, in a primitive form, on board US naval vessels by the time "Star Trek" first came on the air. It was highly classified at the time so the production staff could not possibly have known about it but it did exist in the military "black world")


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

According to Harry Knowles, the interior designs are essentially the same as the original sets, only they look functional. I'm taking that to mean actual video screens in the panels instead of Christmas tree lights behind smoked plexiglass, real buttons instead of colored resin blocks and gumdrops, etc. That sort of thing, I'm all for.

As for the exterior of the ship, my understanding was that the studio's edict was to not change a thing. So far, we seem to be heading towards a whole new definition of "unchanged" than I've ever come across, because, quite frankly, if what we saw in that teaser was in any way representative of the final design, they ain't even close.

Sorry, kids, but if, by the time the final reel unspools, the ship being referred to as the Enterprise is even close to that bloated monstrosity that was foisted on us, I'll be first in line demanding my money back, and I'll be taking part in the time honored Trekkie tradition of writing some very angry letters to Paramount.

Ya don't mess with my ship without a fight, bub.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> According to Harry Knowles, the interior designs are essentially the same as the original sets, only they look functional.


Lol, did Harry actually say that? 



Captain April said:


> As for the exterior of the ship, my understanding was that the studio's edict was to not change a thing.


What is your understanding based on? Not something you read on "Ain't It Cool" I hope.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> And "space warfare"? Everything we've seen to date has shown us little more that WWI dogfights between Brown & Von Richtoffen. In fact, they look no better than the original "Buck Rogers" or "Flash Gordon" serials. Well, OK, they have gotten rid of the "sky" backdrops so I guess that is an improvement. Otherwise, talk about "retro", "Star Wars", "Star Trek" and all these other films are down-right embarrassing when it comes to presentations of space combat. "Retro" indeed.


Well, obviously the dogfights in the original Star Wars were _designed_ to reflect those found in old WW II movies (the same movies Lucas Frankensteined together to create an editorial blueprint for the first Death Star battle). Some may find this brand of cinematic space battle to be "embarrassing," but in the case of Star Wars I think it works just fine. 

Heck, one of the reasons the Star Wars designs hold up as well as they do is because they don't have the burden of representing a plausible technological future. Trek is another story, although in 2009 I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take either the science or the concept. The future ain't what it used to be. 

Fortunately, the audience's concerns re: scientific plausibility diminish in direct proportion to how engaged they are in the story.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I made a couple of teaser posters for fun from the wallpapers on the main site. I thought it might look cooler to have black in the background instead of white.

Made two versions...


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

X15-A2 said:


> The people who have posted here so passionately that TOS "must be updated" seem to be talking about the design of the ship itself, yet when pressed for specifics, they bring up "switch design" on the consoles. WTF?


This is interesting here. Obviously if one we going to do a Star Trek now certain things would get updated.

Let's say we do a movie about the USS Constitution, you simply would not be able to borrow the Enterprise model from the NASM and throw it on screen. The thing is simply too crude. Thus some updating would be in order.

It seems here that it is the cosmetic details that it would be in need of updating, not the concepts. A clever designer would have something that looked the same but without anything that looked hokey by today's standard (e.g the "busy-lights" typical of TV computers.)

It is funny that in the "updated" Star Treks they blather on about the mainframe and running diagnostics.

As far as movie technology goes, compare the cockpit of an F-16 ca 1977 to an X-Wing star fighter of the same era.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> And for those who'd like a retro design: Can anyone name one movie that used a "retro" look that was successful financially? If you want to see that, don't expect any studio to invest $100+ million on it.


While not technically a big screen movie, _Battlestar Galactica_ is about as "retro" as they come. I don't think it has done too badly.:thumbsup:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> While not technically a big screen movie, _Battlestar Galactica_ is about as "retro" as they come. I don't think it has done too badly.:thumbsup:


Excellent point. Although the storyline does explain the need for retro or low-tech approaches to problems, your point is well taken!


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

X15-A2 said:


> The people who have posted here so passionately that TOS "must be updated" seem to be talking about the design of the ship itself, yet when pressed for specifics, they bring up "switch design" on the consoles. WTF?


Actually, the story and characters will make or break this movie. Those are the areas I will be "passionate" about.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mikephys said:


> Excellent point. Although the storyline does explain the need for retro or low-tech approaches to problems, your point is well taken!


I've read some Star Trek fan rationalizations about the lack of robots and more intelligent/more controlling computers in the series as being the result of mankind choosing to maintain his own humanity by keeping the human elements involved in humanity's pursuits (along with the risks that come along with them).

It makes some sense that, like the Cylon War in BG history, something happened in ST history to cause this to be the way things are because, with very few notable exceptions, even by ST:TNG and later, one doesn't see a lot of robots and automated devices everywhere despite the clear utility of such technology.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

The world Kirk and co. live in would, indeed, be a product of its history. First Contact takes place shortly after WWIII. After such a catastrophic event, maybe our technology would be set backward in some areas and not in others.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

The re-designed Battlestar Galactica doesn't seem to have impacted negatively on the current incarnation of that story. So.........

Huzz


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Lol, did Harry actually say that?


Yup, Harry said that, and since he couldn't provide anything to back that up, or any idea of just how nitpicky his is regarding those original designs, all we have is his version of things.



> What is your understanding based on? Not something you read on "Ain't It Cool" I hope.


No, it's from interview snippets from at least one of the designers on the movie, talking about how the studio edict was "no changes to the exterior", whereas the interior was fair game, within reason.

Personally, if the exterior is not only changed, but severely changed, their credibility just flew out the airlock and I won't give a rat's ass about the rest of the movie, I'm leaving, right then and there.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

And so sayeth the first and true Captain of the Enterprise.

I don't mind if they change the guts around here and there either. Having a blend between the sets of The Cage and WNMHGB or even Charlie X or Man Trap would not be bad. Dropping control panels in and simply having them work as Kelso did way back when was cool and very futuristic (the original plug and play). 

And though you may not think of it, it is really the lighting that made the sets what they were. Alive. Compared to TNG where they used plain white light everywhere, TOS used many colors, especially purple and green it seemed. When DS9 did their tribbles ep. (I guess it was) they paid attention to that sort of thing (if I'm remembering correctly) and it looked great overall. They didn't use the same cameras, lenses or film stock and that is the only reason it looked as different as it did. But had they not paid as much attention, the fans would have railed against it. They swung, they hit, they scored on that.

Clearly however the movie uniforms are taking a generational leap though.

But if the 1701 ext. is pretty much the same as she should look for the canon based era, then I'll stick thru the whole thing however bad the script and plot may or may not be. A chance to see the 'original' BIG will be sweet.

But considering as you say they say the guts can change 'within reason', then that particular edict may be out the airllock. Or may not. We'll have to wait 9 more months for the full post-production effect and see.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, over on trekmovie.com, I'm making a point of posting, "SHOW US THE DAMN SHIP ALREADY!" at every opportunity.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Personally, if the exterior is not only changed, but severely changed, their credibility just flew out the airlock and I won't give a rat's ass about the rest of the movie, I'm leaving, right then and there.


I can't understand this mentality. A ship does not a good or bad movie make.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The ship is just as much a character as Kirk and Spock. And unlike the flesh and blood characters, there is *absolutely no need* to "recast" that part.

Sorry, kiddies, but I ain't buyin' the "it's old and therefore must be updated" argument, because it's crap. There's nothing inherently 60's about the Enterprise, inside or out, and the times they've showcased those old designs in the more recent shows proves pretty conclusively that they hold up pretty damn well.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> The ship is just as much a character as Kirk and Spock. And unlike the flesh and blood characters, there is *absolutely no need* to "recast" that part.
> 
> Sorry, kiddies, but I ain't buyin' the "it's old and therefore must be updated" argument, because it's crap. There's nothing inherently 60's about the Enterprise, inside or out, and the times they've showcased those old designs in the more recent shows proves pretty conclusively that they hold up pretty damn well.


I'm sorry, but if you think that any ship from TOS looks like a realistically conceivable future vessel, you are just kidding yourself. Today's ships and hell, even TV news station control rooms look more advanced than the TOS bridge.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a 'realistically conceived future vessel'. XD-1 being the possible exception and as that is hard science, not soft science it is therefore in a league of its own.

Unless you personally come from the future and speak as an authority on the subject there is no concept, sketch or finished rendering ever imagined of or set down on paper (or hard drive) of any distantly-future object that is 'realistic'. All shows are as equally valid and realistic as something like Cleopatra 2525. (Some shows are at least genuine about their own absurdity.) Self-consistency of design and world is what matters. Breaking that fundamental tenet invalidates the whole and breaks the illusion.

Point to the show that 'realistically' represents the future and we will go back to that show in three years and say what a piece of absurd junk it is.

As for the exterior of the 1701Tos, what is not 'futuristic' about it? It's engines don't shoot flames. It has a smooth, un-riveted surface... What else is there to make it futuristic? Personally, every inch of interior wall would be viewscreen instead of littering the hull with those explosive decompression points called windows, but that's just me. And it doesn't fit in with the world view already established. TNG had to jump near a hundred years forward so they wouldn't invalidate TOS. that abomination called Enterprise invalidated itself by being too future for tis inherent timezone. (We'll skip the crap acting and so forth for the moment and if anyone wants to start a thread for that, I'll join in there.)

The Big E was fine 40 years ago, she is self-consistently fine now. It's be like going back and redesigning a car from the 1940's You can't and why would you want to? 

IMHO, of course


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The ship is just as much a character as Kirk and Spock. And unlike the flesh and blood characters, there is *absolutely no need* to "recast" that part.
> 
> Sorry, kiddies, but I ain't buyin' the "it's old and therefore must be updated" argument, because it's crap. There's nothing inherently 60's about the Enterprise, inside or out, and the times they've showcased those old designs in the more recent shows proves pretty conclusively that they hold up pretty damn well.





PixelMagic said:


> I'm sorry, but if you think that any ship from TOS looks like a realistically conceivable future vessel, you are just kidding yourself. Today's ships and hell, even TV news station control rooms look more advanced than the TOS bridge.


Totally agree with Pixel. And since we are simply sharing opinions, I again say that my opinion is that the interiors need updating to make them look more realistic and more importantly like they can actually function. I happen to like the merged functions of the NX-01. It had both push buttons and touch screen displays. 

As far as the look of the ship, I can go either way. As much as I would love to see the original design up on screen, am not closed to having an updated look. 



> The people who have posted here so passionately that TOS "must be updated" seem to be talking about the design of the ship itself, yet when pressed for specifics, they bring up "switch design" on the consoles. WTF?


I brought up an aspect I believed should be updated. My opinion and I am sticking to it. Besides, the only passion I see unfolding here in this thread is the passion from those insisting that all of TOS should be left untouched. Many folks have sworn off this film simply because of the look of a shuttle! My switch design issue seems quite tame compared to that


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

If all we need for a "good" movie is to have the original Enterprise on the big screen, it's already been done. Back in 1982 we had the movie AIRPLANE II: The Sequel. That had William Shatner AND the original, television Enterprise on the big screen, if only for a few seconds.

I personally don't think a couple of us here on this forum threatening to walk out if some little (or big) detail doesn't meet with our satisfaction is going to leave Paramount shaking in their boots. The movie is going to have to work very hard NOT to be a moneymaker! Whether or not it is successful as a reboot to the Star Trek saga is going to depend on a lot more on it's story and acting than how faithful it is to the way certain props and ships compare to how they did in the 1960's. We can complain about how they better not change this or that until we are blue in the fingertips, but the fact is that it is already a done deal. The movie is shot and well into post-production. They aren't going to change a danged thing because we talk and talk about how this should be this way and that should be that way. The ONLY thing any of us really can do is wait and see. Some people are going to love it. Some are not. But giving up on the whole movie because they don't like the fact that the Enterprise looks a little different (or they don't like the way a shuttle looks)? Unfortunately, that might be your loss. I have a friend who not only refused to see the first (or any of the) X-Men movie(s), but outright said they HAD to completely suck. His reason... because they weren't wearing the costumes from the comic books. It's the same argument here... the Enterprise looks different, therefore the movie cannot possibly be any good. Sorry, but that isn't a piece of logic I can get my mind around.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Dave Hussey said:


> The re-designed Battlestar Galactica doesn't seem to have impacted negatively on the current incarnation of that story. So.........
> 
> Huzz


Like I said....

And to quote some wisdom from the new BSG:

"All this has happened before. All this will happen again."

Huzz


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Conversation from 300 years in the future: "Hey, did you see the new Enterprise in the movie coming out?"

"Yes, they are sticking with the original design."

"I know, but it doesn't look anything like a REAL starship."

You know that people will be aware of Star Trek even 300 years from now, even if only some historian digs up a copy of the show or one of the movies. In fact, I suspect Star Trek will still be available in some format even then.

Historically, science fiction has been a poor predictor of the future. When the movie comes out, I'm going to see it. If it's not any good, oh well, it won't be the first dud. If it's a great movie, it will be great, no matter how they visualize it. While I am fond of the original design, I also realize that you can't keep doing the same thing over and over again. If you want the original you can just keep watching them on DVD. I still like those, even before the "new and improved" special effects. But, I've also liked ( to a more or less degree ) the various spin offs. They are not the original, but they each have their own unique style and high points. I try to look at each new Star Trek incarnation as it's own thing and not get too hung up on comparing to other Star Trek stuff.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

You mean you're going to treat it as an entertainment? How rational of you!!:thumbsup:


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

mikephys said:


> ... We probably won't see Spock flipping toggle switches on his computer console or listening to a robotic computer voice with teletype noises in the background either...


My favorite "tech" bit in Trek is from "The Cage" (and the footage is also in "The Menagerie"). Spock, at his console on the bridge, gets a "computer printout" that comes out of a slot in his console. The piece of paper obviously has no resistance and it almost falls out of the slot as Spock is pulling on it. It always makes me laugh! I absolutly love that episode of Trek, but some of the tech bits in that episode... from the above mentioned "computer printout" to the hideously large brick-sized communicators! 

But, you still gotta love it all!

--Henry


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Some of the artwork in the upper monitors has ripples form the glue backing too.

But don't forget Spock waving his hand over a controller to get the screens to change, orbit-to-planet power transmission phaser canon, I think Pike had a wall mounted TV in his cabin? (It's been years since I seen it). The ultra-plexi cage itself. How about Seattle in the BG? we got no cool laser pistols yet. I also don't think we've advanced to psionic powers either...

But do these laugh-points today detract from the story or the drama? Is the mongolian dude less fearsome an opponent due to his cheesy gear and teeth?

I'd say no. 

Anyone that can't look back and gloss the cheese for the underlying meat of the story is really missing out. (Think biplanes in Metroplois.) 

They did what they could with what they had.

And from Cage to Menagerie, there is the sense of 13 yrs of 1701's design and improvements, isn't there? That's why anything else would be jarring at the very least. 

That's why I'd like them to show us 1701 in her original beauty, fitting in with the timeline as established. If I walk out on the movie, it's going to be for the story, and I fully expect as of now to be getting a refund.

Caliokie:
>Conversation from 300 years in the future: "Hey, did you see the new Enterprise in the movie coming out?" "Yes, they are sticking with the original design."

Another answer:
"For primitive people, it's amazing how prescient they were way back then. Isn't it?!?"


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

So, I was bored tonight, and decided to make my own updated TOS uniforms, as they may appear in Star Trek XI. I really liked the field jacket of the Cage, and combined that with the coloring and style of the TOS uniforms. So here is what I came up with...


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Model Man said:


> I think Pike had a wall mounted TV in his cabin? (It's been years since I seen it).


There was a very recognizable mid-20th-century TV screen in Pike's quarters, but it was built into a low cabinet, not on the wall. (I believe that was also the shot where we briefly see the Captain's hat.)

[IMG-LEFT]http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/5/57/Mojave-pike_vina_tango.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]


Model Man said:


> How about Seattle in the BG?


If you' re referring to the picnic sequence with Pike, Vina and the horse, that's not Seattle -- that's Pike's hometown of Mojave. All this used to be, like, nothing but desert, dude!

A couple of my favorite low-tech Trek moments are the squirt bottle used to poison Lt. Riley's milk in "The Conscience of the King," and the microphone -- excuse me, "white sound device" -- that McCoy uses to isolate the sound of Finney's heartbeat in "Court Martial."


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Thanks Scotpens! :thumbsup: Mojave. I've been studying/watching nothing but Dark Angel the past couple weeks  

Was it a regular tv cabinet? Ah well. Always happy to admit I'm wrong. It's the only way to be better next time.

The squirt bottle was pretty good! But a futuristic looking squirt bottle none-the-less. 

Just wish they would release this stupid movie already and get all this over with. Paramount breaking the TGiving/XMas release trend of the last 10 movies is a pain. They are just going to sit on it for 8 additional months.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Model Man said:


> But do these laugh-points today detract from the story or the drama? Is the mongolian dude less fearsome an opponent due to his cheesy gear and teeth?


My point exactly. The CLASSIC cheese is just that. CLASSIC. And when I watch the cheese in context with the original series, I don't expect anything more. I am satisfied and I am enjoying myself. However, the same elements can not be used for a feature film. The mongolian dude would be a laughable opponent due to his cheese gear and teeth. He needs updating.

Now, I am not saying that Enterprise needs updating...I am just completely open to A change.



> That's why I'd like them to show us 1701 in her original beauty, fitting in with the timeline as established. If I walk out on the movie, it's going to be for the story, and I fully expect as of now to be getting a refund.


You are expecting to receive a refund for a film you expect to walk out on that is not set to release until next year?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Like I said a few posts ago, I don't mind some change if it is inline with what was.

>But if the 1701 ext. is pretty much the same as she should look for the canon based era, then I'll stick thru the whole thing however bad the script and plot may or may not be. A chance to see the 'original' BIG will be sweet.

So a crappy script/plot etc that also has a disappointing 1701, I'm outta there -unless I get to see it for free. In which case, I may as well get the pain over with. I just watched Nemesis for the first time a few months ago. Not the worst of them, but certainly down there. :freak:

Point taken on Mongolian dude, but he may not have been the best example. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*I feel good*

have you seen this pic of Quinto as Spock from the movie site?
I have a good feeling about this


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I think talk of demanding a refund for a movie ticket (because you didn't like said movie) is ridiculous in general. It's like Seinfeld said of why he wouldn't try to return fruit he didn't like. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of, "I wouldn't return fruit. With fruit, you know going in that it's a gamble." Same thing with a movie. No one is ever guaranteed to like a movie.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Jaruemalak (Jun 12, 2008)

Oh, I don't know about that. To (mis)quote the kids from South Park, "I go to movies to be entertained. I was NOT entertained! I want my six bucks back!"

Although, to be honest, while I have walked out of movies before, I have never asked for a refund.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jaruemalak said:


> Oh, I don't know about that. To (mis)quote the kids from South Park, "I go to movies to be entertained. I was NOT entertained! I want my six bucks back!"
> 
> Although, to be honest, while I have walked out of movies before, I have never asked for a refund.


I asked for a refund only twice and got it both times. 

In once case the theatre was hot and the audio sounded as if it were coming from a bad speaker or two. Those were both conditions that were clearly the responsibility of the theater owner/management.

In another case, the theater was unbelievably crowded with young kids and the management would/could do nothing to alleviate their constant chatter and movement.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> So, I was bored tonight, and decided to make my own updated TOS uniforms, as they may appear in Star Trek XI. I really liked the field jacket of the Cage, and combined that with the coloring and style of the TOS uniforms. So here is what I came up with...


Great design!:thumbsup:

I think there is plenty of room to show uniform variations and make small improvements here and there in the upcoming movie. I think what most folks are upset with is the idea that there will be radical changes.

If the movie were billed as a total reboot rather than part of the "history" of Trek, a radical redesign wouldn't matter so much though a "reimagining" along the lines of BSG might alienate many of the base. Star Trek already has a huge following/fan base. They might not want to mess with that too much if they know what's good for 'em.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Might be a sneak peak at the new communicator and tricorder from Comic Con, depends on how accurate the toys are:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

With huge apologies to the artist who first made this image, I reduced the nacelle by 20%, then stretched it. I also modified the fin. A little better maybe? (Still an abomination in the purists eyes I'm certain.)


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I could almost live with that rendition if the cowlings were removed from the warp engines.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Outside of the nacelles and warp pylons in the imagined picture in this thread, I think the rest of the ship is quite beautiful.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I can't figure out why there is a docking port in the neck


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

That's not a docking port -- that's a REALLY big Allen bolt!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Y'know, since the rest of the ship is so similar to the TOS E, those cowlings are just bloody distracting. I say, keep the old contours and just add a subtle aztec. Or a ring, greebly or rounded chamfer here and there.

Besides, the organic rounded cowlings just don't work with the inorganic straight lines of the rest of the ship. Goofy. But then again, I didn't like the TMP ship, and have since recanted.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I wonder if it will be all metallic paneling like the prequel Enterprise TV series. I guess they would fit it looks-wise in between that and TOS. But I guess they might make it look in between the Enterprise series and TMP 1701-A. I might be able to live with that if hopefully it looks more TOS than TMP. Having a metallic looking TOS-ish ship might be cool, before at some point it got a paint job.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

They did a great job on the remastered TOS. That could hold up at 2k (film rez).


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Steve, this is a so-called "reboot" so they won't be worrying about anything that came before. Regrettably. I don't like boots.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/faq#.2.1.5

Q: Is this a reboot?
A: No. However, the producers have said that they believe some continuity breaches are forgivable to tell a good story.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Yeah, the teaser ship looks more TMP style to me from the limited views we've seen.


----------

