The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > A Thought - New Enterprise in a Remastered ST:TOS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 01-03-2009, 12:29 AM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordisaiah View Post

To respond to those talking about Deg3D and others who remodel the TOS Enterprise...the argument that it wouldn't hold up on the big screen, I think is a bogus one. You've never seen any of the TOS Enterprise versions on the big screen, so how would you know.
You're not being very realistic, I'm afraid. When movie companies employ special effects teams full of experienced people they are paying them to make new, high quality effects which have never been seen in the world before. The whole point of paying artists is that they DO know what something will look like in advance of putting it on a screen - I'm paid to do this myself, I'm not just making it up. It's visual imagination and professional experience which allows them to know what will look good, before the money is spent. This is why they don't just get untrained members of the public in to design the effects (and why I am never called upon to repair the space shuttle, fix a car or any of the thousands of skilled jobs I haven't a clue about).

I understand that you thought TOS-R looked good on a big screen but I've seen a lot of student work on cinema screens. It does tend to make things look stronger than on a TV (it's all bigger), but it doesn't make them movie quality. Here's a couple of points:

1. No movie director in the history of Star Trek in cinema ever used the sixties design "as is" - this is indisputable fact. Why not? If you're right they could have saved lots of money.

2. Can you name me one other modern film which uses low-end TV quality FX work (which TOS-R is) on a big budget feature?*

You might not be able to tell the difference but the movie makers can't take the chance that everyone won't be able to. They have to make the FX as amazing as possible, no one wants to spend $150m and have egg on their saucer section (face )


* If you don't believe that TOS-R is low quality, look at the work done by Deg3D. For my mind this is superior quality to the TOS-R shots I've seen and he did this on his own and for almost zero budget. Kudos to him. You do get what you pay for and a budget of millions of dollars and a big FX team (they're the strings of names at the end of the credits) do much more polished work. If they didn't ILM would have one bloke in his garage doing the FX (like when they did TOS title sequence).

Last edited by Scribbler : 01-03-2009 at 12:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-03-2009, 01:31 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I say East is East, West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

I am stoked about seeing the new Enterprise in the new film, but I doubt I would want to see her in the old show. Similarly, I doubt I would want to see the old designs in the new movie. I love the old show, and the ship is fine for her time, just as the motion picture Enterprise from I-VI looked fine in her time.

Oh, and btw, I loved the remake of Lost In Space, and the redesign of Jupiter II.

I also agree with a poster way earlier in this thread that I wish the FX house that updated Star Trek The Motion Picture would've updated the Klingon attack sequence just a little bit. At least they cleaned up the "ghost boxing" around the battlecruisers in the initial shots. (Ghost boxing is what you get when using composited blue-screen FX in the old methods of filming....just watch the very original versions of Star Wars, and you'll see it....same thing with the original Battlestar Galactica.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-03-2009, 02:14 PM
deg3D's Avatar
deg3D deg3D is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
It's visual imagination and professional experience which allows them to know what will look good, before the money is spent.
Well Scribbler, this is true in theory of course, but like everything in life, it does not always work out that way. There have been many productions that have gone south due to things not coming out as expected/planned, or within the time-frame needed. In general production, but also in visual effects (which is the term for VFX these days, as the "old-school" term "special effects" is now used primarily to refer to on-set physical effects).

One case in point is TMP itself. Robert Abel and Associates totally dropped the ball, spending millions and over (if I recall correctly) 8 months on TMP's special effects (proper use of term for that time), and then failed to deliver anything useable. Trumbull, and I think it was Edlund's Boss Effects as well, had to scramble big time to make up the time to deliver their own efx for that show, to meet the December 07, 1979 premiere date.

More recently, I recall there was a big to-do revolving around Digital Domain dropping the ball on a big show, and being fired from the contract for it. Can't recall the show for the life of me (maybe The Day After Tomorrow, but don't quote me on that), or who was gifted with taking up the slack and getting the job done. Crunch-time and OT!

Pros (in any field) while accomplished in their craft no doubt, in the end, are just peeps, and thus, are subject to making peeps-related mistakes eh.

Oh, and just a note, I do not believe ILM is using practical models for Star Trek XI. The Kelvin and E are CG filming models. These days CG models, now that they are at the level they are, are the foremost choice in VFX work (for many reasons, not the least of which is, a CG model is way less expensive to create than a practical model (TMP E back in '78 was around $750,000, back then). That is not to say practical models are never ever used in VFX anymore (you'd be surprised how many were used in the last three Star Wars films), but CG is definitely the forerunner of choice in today's VFX industry.

But yes, I concur, no matter, they (directors and producers) are going to put NEW stuff in a new film, by default, as that is the nature of new, and moving forward with new.

I myself want to see something I have never seen before eh.

And thanks for the nice words about my TOS.5 E.

deg
__________________
VFX artist/lead modeler/creature/hardware
Universal Studios
Defiance

http://deg3D.biz

Last edited by deg3D : 01-03-2009 at 02:25 PM. Reason: Spelling, proper use of grammar and sentence structure are important...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.