# CGI Flagship Fesarius



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

New image of the CGI Fesarius from the remastered "The Corbomite Manuever"

http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-003/pop.html

I was wondering what they were going to do with such a simple design (It always struck me as a giant disco-golf ball). They really punched it up without altering the original concept.

John


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Wonderful!

One of the absolute BEST episodes too.
The spirit of Trek is really captured well in this episode.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Now that's gonna be sweet! And, it is one of my favorite episodes too 

Todd


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Looks really cool! They've Fullerized it!

(That's Buckminster, not Samuel.)


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Now THAT's awesome! A better sense of scale and menace, and just plainly beautiful. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

They techno-ized it and killed the magic.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm in the "love it" camp.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> They techno-ized it and killed the magic.


Yes, the magic of ping pong balls.

The new version makes me think of the covers to the old _Best of_ TREK books.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Not too bad but I don't care much for the geodesic dome effect. It kind of looks like the Borg ship with pimples.

Why not go with simple glowing/pulsing spheres instead more like the original?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well I like that pic... I havent seen the episode yet. Sure beats a giant popcorn ball thats for sure!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm firmly in the "like it" camp. That comparison shot is what did it for me, I think. 

'Course, on the other hand, there seemed to be a much better sense of scale in the original print. You get a feel that _Fesarius_ is freakin' *immense* in size in the old print, whereas it doesn't look quite so hugeomongous in the new print. 

Meh... I don't have a problem with the new print really, regardless.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Not too bad but I don't care much for the geodesic dome effect. It kind of looks like the Borg ship with pimples.


[IMG-LEFT]http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Images/volvox.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]

More like how a Borg ship would look if the Borg had any esthetic sense, IMO. The original always reminded me of something you'd see in pond water under a microscope.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

sbaxter said:


> Yes, the magic of ping pong balls.


 No, the magic of an alien technology that you just can't tell how it was built. As opposed to Bucky Fuller domes and a clearly-constructed set of support girders.


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

Now if they can only do something to improve the appearance of Clint Howard! There's one guy who never got any better looking when he grew up.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> No, the magic of an alien technology that you just can't tell how it was built. As opposed to Bucky Fuller domes and a clearly-constructed set of support girders.


That's it :thumbsup:

I'd like to just see the _Fesarius_, Flagship of the First Federation, a little more clearly but not reduced to easily explainable architectural structures.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> No, the magic of an alien technology that you just can't tell how it was built.


I understand what you mean. My point was that the original effect never did that for me. It _always_ struck me as an array of ping-pong balls (or something similar), filmed with a (possibly) deliberate blur in an attempt to mask its pedestrian origin.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Heh, heh...balls.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

From ping pong balls to techno-mushrooms.

Whatever happened to the First Federation anyhow? Surprising they never did anything more with them.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Ok so I will way in on the other side. I think the original screen look was far more mysterious and alot more alien tech looking than this CGI version. Alien ships should NOT always look like a rearrangement of earth technology.

Mark


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

terryr said:


> Whatever happened to the First Federation anyhow? Surprising they never did anything more with them.


 
They had a pretty bad recession that they never recovered from. They're now known as the Third Federation.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

"Yes, we're very much alike, Captain - both proud of our ships." - Balok

Personally after seeing the updated pic, Balok has more reason to be proud. 
I think it looks great so far. And really makes it look giganticously hugefully big.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The whole shot looks like a pre-production painting. The spheres look like the eyes of the LEXX. I like TOS version better.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

marc111 said:


> Alien ships should NOT always look like a rearrangement of earth technology.


Point taken, but some basic engineering concepts — the pyramid, the masonry arch, the geodesic dome — are universal and will eventually be discovered by any intelligent species. The real question is, if Balok had no crew or passengers, what did he need that freakin' humongous ship for?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

scotpens said:


> . . . The real question is, if Balok had no crew or passengers, what did he need that freakin' humongous ship for?


To move planets?


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

terryr said:


> Whatever happened to the First Federation anyhow? Surprising they never did anything more with them.


Yes. Just think of the story possibilities with a race of bald, technologically advanced children that like to play mind games.

There's also the problem that once they eventually decided that the Enterprise's parent organization would be the Federation (instead of UESPA), any interaction between the two would be very confusing. 

I wonder if the producers thought they would be re-using any of the alien races encountered in the first season. I suspect that the reason the Romulan Warbird model was lost was because no one thought they'd be seeing the Romulans after Balance of Terror.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

They could have kicked the Borgs butt. They would have crushed their Cube into a ...cube.


----------



## abu625 (Jul 4, 2002)

terryr said:


> From ping pong balls to techno-mushrooms.
> 
> Whatever happened to the First Federation anyhow? Surprising they never did anything more with them.


If memory serves, the "Federation" -- and later the United Federation of Planets -- was not even mentioned until long after "Corbomite Maneuver" was written. I always suspected that Roddenberry and his cadre of writers stole the "Federation" concept from themselves, first using it in "Corbomite" and then appropriating it for their own, previously unnamed interstellar organization.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> I suspect that the reason the Romulan Warbird model was lost was because no one thought they'd be seeing the Romulans after Balance of Terror.


I assume you mean the Romulan Bird of Prey, which, IIRC, was built by Wah Chang for a non-Trek-related project and borrowed by Desilu for "Balance of Terror." The Warbird made its first appearance in TNG.


abu625 said:


> I always suspected that Roddenberry and his cadre of writers stole the "Federation" concept from themselves, first using it in "Corbomite" and then appropriating it for their own, previously unnamed interstellar organization.


Was the United Federation of Planets mentioned at all in the first season? G.R. found it difficult enough to sell the idea of a future United Earth to NBC. ("Why can't it be a nice, safe, patriotic _United States_ spaceship?")


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

There's a trailer for the new version up on StarTrek.com. It actually looks very good, like only the closeups have detail, otherwise the ship looks very similar to the original


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm trying to picture Clint Howard as a Borg. That's about the only thing that could make him look worse!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> scotpens said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is, if Balok had no crew or passengers, what did he need that freakin' humongous ship for?
> ...


Or maybe he just had a lot of junk to haul around? Or maybe he was married and his wife had a lot of junk to haul around?


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Nah, he was fresh out of his appearance in an episode of "Pimp my Death Star!" :wave:


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

ilbasso said:


> I'm trying to picture Clint Howard as a Borg. That's about the only thing that could make him look worse!


Resistance was futile...









John


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

ilbasso said:


> Now if they can only do something to improve the appearance of Clint Howard! There's one guy who never got any better looking when he grew up.



They fixed his teeth! No more gap!

We can only hope

Rob


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

Bravo, Schmidt!!!! You are truly one sick and talented fellow!!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, that's a nice picture of Yamahog as a Borg, but what about Clint Howard?


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Why did he need such a big ship? Same reason tiny little women need HUGE SUVs to go to the mall.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

scotpens said:


> I assume you mean the Romulan Bird of Prey, which, IIRC, was built by Wah Chang for a non-Trek-related project and borrowed by Desilu for "Balance of Terror." The Warbird made its first appearance in TNG.


Yeah. I always get those mixed up. Should have researched it before posting. (So, is it Kahn or Khan?)


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

http://khaaan.com/ :tongue:


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Watched it today. I like what they did, having seen it in full context. Notable detail: the spinning cube cast colors upon the Enterprise surface. Nicely done. Same when being towed by Balok's little four-baller, cast light reflected on the Enterprise surface.

Why did he have that big huge ball ship? Why, to haul around his very extensive unopened Star Trek model kit stash! I bet he has first-run NCC-1701 kits in there, unopened, MINT CONDITION. I even think he has some "smoothies" in his pile. Come on, we can take him! Stu, you distract him while we all grab what we can.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The best update on the special effects was the breakaway from the pilot ship. :thumbsup:

Everything was very much in keeping with the original episode overall.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Saw the whole episode last night, then watched it again today with my daughters. I actually think it's one of the best ones they've redone. They're starting to get the hang of it, I think.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm still hoping that when it comes time to release the entire episode, they fix that "One minute...I knew he would" gaffe (Balok was supposed to say "One minute" at the same time Sulu did, thus prompting Sulu's response of "I knew he would"; since the "next week" preview contains the bit of dialogue with Ted Cassidy bellowing "ONE MINUTE", it's an easy fix).


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Another minor gaffe that probably isn't worth fixing: When Dr. McCoy says, "Balok's message was heard all over the ship," he pronounces it "Ballick." If everyone on the _Enterprise_ has heard Balok announce his own name and no one has seen it in print, why would McCoy mispronounce it?

At least he didn't say "ballocks"!

(Can I use that word here?)


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

That's not the kind of thing that will be "fixed." No performances will be altered, only effects and an overall digital cleanup. Even the horriffic acting in "That Which Survives" will have to stand.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

They've got some great angles on the Big E in this one...love that overhead shot after the buoy incident.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

scotpens said:


> Another minor gaffe that probably isn't worth fixing: When Dr. McCoy says, "Balok's message was heard all over the ship," he pronounces it "Ballick." If everyone on the _Enterprise_ has heard Balok announce his own name and no one has seen it in print, why would McCoy mispronounce it?
> 
> At least he didn't say "ballocks"!
> 
> (Can I use that word here?)


McCoy was always mispronouncing names (ex: immediately after Amanda mentions that Spock had a pet sehlat he was rather fond of, McCoy pronounces it "sell it", instead of "say lot", as Amanda had pronounced it two seconds before right in front of him).

At least what I'm suggesting is using an original element that was mistakenly omitted from the final product, the presence of which, or the lack thereof, does effect how the scene plays, specifically Sulu's seemingly nonsensical "I knew he would" line.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iUzx9hUXUY


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

ilbasso said:


> I'm trying to picture Clint Howard as a Borg. That's about the only thing that could make him look worse!


now THATS funny.

Picture Hallmark doing that as a christmas ornimant.


----------



## Capt. James B. (Apr 5, 2002)

I loved this episode and all of the new work that went into it. I'm amazed by the fact that no matter what is done , someone will find something to complain about. Sheesh! 

I was one of the great unwashed, that had the audacity, years ago, to ask "What if they redid the FX for TOS?"

I for one am damned glad they did. Considering they have no budget, I think they've done a stellar job and I for one, am glad to see the changes.

The new Fesarius didn't take anything away from the original and only added to the beauty of the ship and show.

I can't wait for more and will definately be in line for the new DVD sets. I'm proud to be an "old school" TOS fan, but I'm also proud to see the new effects.

I think they are magnificent. Watch your old DVD's and leave it alone. No one is bashing cannon. At least this isn't the travesty that was "Enterprise" wanna be Star Trek.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Capt. James B. said:


> I loved this episode and all of the new work that went into it. I'm amazed by the fact that no matter what is done , someone will find something to complain about. Sheesh!
> 
> I was one of the great unwashed, that had the audacity, years ago, to ask "What if they redid the FX for TOS?"
> 
> ...



Very well stated, sir! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iUzx9hUXUY



Are these clips you made?

Great stuff in any case. :thumbsup: 

Reminds me that I wish they'd have shaken the _outside_ of the ship a wee bit to match the inside vibrations.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Are these clips you made?


 :freak:
That's the CBS effects reel for the remastered episode as it aired on TV.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Okay. I guess my question was very poorly put. What I meant to ask:_ who copied the special effects clips from the episode?_

I suppose I was asking if *CessnaDriver* has any connection to http://trekmovie.com/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

OK ... gotta ask ... who is making a 1/350 scale Fesarius to go with their Refit model :freak: :tongue:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well I watched it last night and I thought it was VERY well done. Added so much and took away nothing. Good job CBS!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^Okay. I guess my question was very poorly put. What I meant to ask:_ who copied the special effects clips from the episode?_
> 
> I suppose I was asking if *CessnaDriver* has any connection to http://trekmovie.com/



Just a youtube surfer here. The FX shots generally get posted on youtube weekly now.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*My only beef...*

Great F/X on this one but my complaint ( and this goes for the original version as well) is that when they are held stationary in front of the bouy, they are shown to be WAAAY too close to it. I believe Spock says that it is 1500 meters away and gives the exact dimensions of the cube. It shouldn't have been too difficult to render the scene based on those figures. Maybe not as dramatic for TV, but still...


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Great F/X on this one but my complaint ( and this goes for the original version as well) is that when they are held stationary in front of the bouy, they are shown to be WAAAY too close to it. I believe Spock says that it is 1500 meters away and gives the exact dimensions of the cube. It shouldn't have been too difficult to render the scene based on those figures. Maybe not as dramatic for TV, but still...


Yeah, I notice that too. I think that's the way it was in the original, so they seem to have followed suit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

They seem to be reproducing the old effects as exactly as possible now, with only one or two "new" shots. I appreciate this a little more than when they were adding in moves that could never have been done in the 60s.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Sure, well, just took some practice. I went out of my way to tape and see this one as it's long been my favorite. That breakaway shot was great, LOOKED very '60's, and as I might have mentioned, the subtleties are what really tickle me about these new shots.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John, there was no way they could have taken that distant overhead shot of the 11-footer, unless they cut the roof out of the F/X studio. :tongue:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What a mean bunch! I can't watch the episodes, and you.....tease me! 
No stations to see it on, yet.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

spe130 said:


> John, there was no way they could have taken that distant overhead shot of the 11-footer, unless they cut the roof out of the F/X studio. :tongue:


 Yes, I know, which is why I said "with only one or two 'new' shots."

(But they could have done that shot with the 3-footer if they'd wanted)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> What a mean bunch! I can't watch the episodes, and you.....tease me!
> No stations to see it on, yet.


You're probably better off waiting to see them on HD-DVD. They've butchered the episodes about as badly as they've been done in the past to squeeze in more commercials. 

The HD-DVDs will be complete which will also mean a few more effects shots, if I'm not mistaken. 

And, of course, you'll get to see the _final _version of the effects shots which makes what we're seeing "rough drafts."


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have no plans to buy the HD-DVDs. My buck stops on the DVDs I have. 
I replaced Beta copies of movies, for VHS, then DVD. No more!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I have no plans to buy the HD-DVDs. My buck stops on the DVDs I have.
> I replaced Beta copies of movies, for VHS, then DVD. No more!


Oh, you got Sony Beta movies?

Then you should go for Blu-Ray for sure! :lol:


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

In a previous posting I made some less than complimentary comments about the quality of the CGI that appeared in the "new and improved" special effects for Star Trek. I hereby humbly backpedal. The quality has improved recently -- it seems the ship has a little more texture and a little more contrast in the lighting program. The current shading makes it look a little more 3D -- not quite so flat and monotone. I still am troubled by the lack of film grain. This causes the shots to stand out from the rest of the scenes.

I also ask: "where does it all end?" The new release of the 50th anniversary edition of Forbidden Planet is a case in point. The film is clearer, sharper, and newer looking than I have ever seen it. Shouldn't someone apply a wire removal program to the shots of C-57-D and the doctor when being carried by Robbie? The same can be said of the 1953 classic "War of the Worlds." 

These things are what they are -- they were made in a particular time in history with technology that was available at the time. I enjoyed Star Trek the first time around 40 years ago, I enjoy it still. CGI does not make it more enjoyable -- in fact it is a little distracting -- I watch the current shows to see the CGI just to see what they've done with them. Lord knows I have every frame of the shows memorized.

I guess my point is that I find the CGI fun to watch, but I don't feel that it does much to improve the show -- and that's just my humble opinion.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Nosirrag said:


> Shouldn't someone apply a wire removal program to the shots of C-57-D and the doctor when being carried by Robbie?


You mean Robby wasn't really strong enough to carry ten tons of isotope number whatever? Say it ain't so!

Next thing you'll be telling us the guy in the Gort suit couldn't really lift and carry Patricia Neal!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

I like what they did in this episode,as it is one of my favorite,an I like what they are doing in general.Alexander


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> Yes, I know, which is why I said "with only one or two 'new' shots."
> 
> (But they could have done that shot with the 3-footer if they'd wanted)


Or they could have used an AMT kit! (Speaking generally...yes, I know no one had even thought of the kit when CM was filmed...)


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Great F/X on this one but my complaint ( and this goes for the original version as well) is that when they are held stationary in front of the bouy, they are shown to be WAAAY too close to it. I believe Spock says that it is 1500 meters away and gives the exact dimensions of the cube. It shouldn't have been too difficult to render the scene based on those figures. Maybe not as dramatic for TV, but still...


In this case, perhaps a audio edit was in order.

They could have clipped 1500 at 15-meters.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

I wonder if model companies could use CGI models to make new cad/cam master molds?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Sure they could... they do it already.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that I've actually seen a couple of whole episodes of these remastered efforts beyond the clips and screencaps I've seen online...

I am really unimpressed. Technically the new shots have a measure of polish and in some cases perhaps smoother movement than the old 11 footer _E,_ but that said they've lost something in the translation. Even their new cgi model--being much better than their first effort--looks unconvincing and without substance. It's technically nice, but it really lacks any sense of size and majesty the old f/x managed with the 11 footer.

But what really disappoints me is how obvious it all is. Very little if any of it looks anything like they could have been done originally under the best of conditions back in the day. It all stands out so obviously against the remaining live-action footage rather than fitting in seamlessly as the new f/x did in the TMP-DE and Lucas' revamped original SW trilogy. To me this is a real slap-in-the-face to the original creators. Rather than building upon and enhancing what was already there they've just replaced it with slicker (and inappropriate) contemporary flash and zero substance.

In "Balance Of Terror" I absolutely loathe how they've done their new proximity blast phaser bursts. Hell, they just made them photon torpedoes (despite the evident dialog) and given them cheap video game detonation f/x. It doesn't hold a candle to the silent yet still very effective original effort. The new comet was also a letdown. Rather than adding to the suspense of the moment it became just "Lookee what we can do!" The close up of the new Romulan BoP with its _kewl_ hull plating was also a letdown.

Another thing that really bugged me was the loss of some still beautiful flybys of the 11 footer. At the beginning of BoT we had a great shot of the _E_ flying out of the distance and right at your p.o.v. as if to run you over as the lower hull comes right at you. Now it's gone. In "Space Seed" I always loved that profile shot of the _E_ coming up alongside the derelict _Botany Bay._ It, too, is also now gone. )-:

I'm glad I have the original episodes in the box sets and now I don't even mind that I paid something more than I should have. Because now I can still appreciate the resourcefulness and creativity the original producers tried for under difficult circumstances.

All in all this is really little more than eye candy to make TOS f/x look more like contemporary Trek's rather than enhancing TOS' own distinctive aesthetic.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Yet another case of not everything for everyone.

I disagree totally. The original F/X looked grainy, discolored, and overly fake. Space turbulence meant a tiny ship onscreen while the camera goes jiggle-jiggle. The actor elements have always looked far cleaner than any F/X shot, so in MY eyes, its achieved some shot continuity that was never POSSIBLE in 1967 - 1969. For me, this is also giving me reason to sit and enjoy these classic episodes again. I mean, I've seen each and every one so many times I don't want to bother anymore. But to see them in a new way, absolutely I'm excited.

I also happened to like most of the changes to Star Wars, except the Han Solo thing, nobody likes that.

Do I miss the old space F/X? Not at all. I love the new work. I love that the stories are all the same, not a change to be seen. When my wife watches it, and she is as much a Trek fan as me, I often need to point out the changes to her.

As has been said, to each their own.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

You know, if this was a movie they wouldn't dare change it without the directors approval. These are the Non-Directors Cut Special EFX Edition.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Roguepink said:


> Yet another case of not everything for everyone.
> 
> I disagree totally. The original F/X looked grainy, discolored, and overly fake. Space turbulence meant a tiny ship onscreen while the camera goes jiggle-jiggle. ....
> 
> As has been said, to each their own.


I really do appreciate the work that was done in the sixties on the show. I came to Trek in the rerun period of the seventies, and when I was young, I didn't mind the FX. But when I rewatch some of the episodes as an adult, if anything pulls me out of the story, it's the old sixties FX. I can appreciate them for what they were, but I'm starting to enjoy the new FX, now that they seem to be getting the hang of it. Again, different strokes, I suppose.

Brad.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I finally saw "Balance of Terror" and noticed that, at that point (IIRC, _BOT_ was one of the earlier episodes the new CBS effects work was done on) the nacelle effects were reminiscent of the _animated_ 1701 nacelles


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

CGI are cartoons, done in a computer.


----------

