The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Wild speculation about the TOS E...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-18-2008, 10:51 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
That's fine, but honestly, does the area circled in red look much more angled than the area where the construction workers are walking across the secondary hull?
I think what you are comparing is the same ship just the camera angle gives you a more distorted view of the main hull
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-18-2008, 10:52 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
I don't expect you to agree, but here's my view. The television effects you're describing are way short of movie quality (I have great fondness for the old designs too). They look very obviously like CG renders done in a hurry and on a comparatively low budget, and to be honest even as a piece of TV FX work don't stand up well to modern scrutiny. Look at Zoic studios' work on Battlestar Galactica for a more up to date example. Modern film effects strive to look real and they use a lot of sophisicated lighting and rendering to do this. It isn't just a question of the surface texturing or small details either. The big cylindrical simple forms don't cut it in today's high quality world of design. They were great in the sixties and the design is iconic but more than just "slight surface detailing" is required to bring them up to date. You may have noticed that none of the Star Trek films, even the beloved old ones used the original sixties design as is. Why do you think that might be?
They did not update the movies simply because the old TOS E couldn't be updated for the movie. Of course it could. But, time had passed and they used the excuse that the E was being refitted and hence it would different!

Look they made the film the Titanic. They didn't update the ship did they? Of course not, but they built a model that stood up today's standards for use on the big screen!
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-18-2008, 10:53 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN MOUSE View Post
I think what you are comparing is the same ship just the camera angle gives you a more distorted view of the main hull
Sorry there's more than camera angles involved here. The hull is more curved, almost dome like in the red circled area, but not where the men are working. If you where standing in the circled area right next to say the left pylon you would not be able to see the base of the right pylon looking straight across, yet in the other shot you can.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!

Last edited by omegaman : 12-18-2008 at 11:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-18-2008, 11:07 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
Sorry there's more than camera angles involved here. The hull is more curved, almost dome like in the red circled area, but not where the men are working. If you where standing in the circled area right next to say the left pylon you would not be able to see the base of the right pylon looking straight across, yet in the other shot you can.
I still have to disagree have a tendency to warp or distort an object depending on what type of lens you are using...ever look at pictures taken to showcase a resort in a brochure? simetime the rooms look enormouse and slightly "fish bowled"? I think the same has happened here...just my opinion.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-18-2008, 11:12 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN MOUSE View Post
I still have to disagree have a tendency to warp or distort an object depending on what type of lens you are using...ever look at pictures taken to showcase a resort in a brochure? simetime the rooms look enormouse and slightly "fish bowled"? I think the same has happened here...just my opinion.
Yep. Familiar with it. I'm a graphic designer. But, seriously I don't think that's the case here.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-18-2008, 12:07 PM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
Yep. Familiar with it. I'm a graphic designer. But, seriously I don't think that's the case here.
As a fellow graphic designer ...I have given careful scrutiny to both of the pictures that you have provided. The encirled area I noticed that the pylons are close to the aft of the main hull. Secondly, on the pylon picture the workers are actually pretty huge in comparison to the "hull" which still bares no resmblance to any previous designs of earlier Enterprise's.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-18-2008, 01:04 PM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
They did not update the movies simply because the old TOS E couldn't be updated for the movie. Of course it could. But, time had passed and they used the excuse that the E was being refitted and hence it would different!

Look they made the film the Titanic. They didn't update the ship did they? Of course not, but they built a model that stood up today's standards for use on the big screen!
If I'm right (the Saint told me and he is never wrong) the original Enterprise was designed by Walter M. Jeffries, the same designer who did the core design work for Star Trek the Motion Picture and Phase II. He recognised the Enterprise needed updating way back in the seventies. I've always believed (does anyone have any evidence either way?) the "refit" was a script excuse to try to explain away the fact that the designers changed almost everything about the original ship, inside and out (and they thought the fans might get pissy).

Even Jeffries the original designer had to change more than just superficial elements of the Enterprise to update it to a modern audience. I think that if he did it, it's probably ok for Ryan Church to do it too.

The Titanic is a different kettle of fish - it's a real ship which actually sank in real life. If you make a film about it you want to recreate it faithfully. The Enterprise is not real and expectations of FX change.

I am totally cool with anyone who doesn't like the new design, I'm just arguing that the sacred cow of the original design was pretty much sacrificed back in the seventies.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-18-2008, 01:27 PM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
If I'm right (the Saint told me and he is never wrong) the original Enterprise was designed by Walter M. Jeffries, the same designer who did the core design work for Star Trek the Motion Picture and Phase II. He recognised the Enterprise needed updating way back in the seventies. I've always believed (does anyone have any evidence either way?) the "refit" was a script excuse to try to explain away the fact that the designers changed almost everything about the original ship, inside and out (and they thought the fans might get pissy).

Even Jeffries the original designer had to change more than just superficial elements of the Enterprise to update it to a modern audience. I think that if he did it, it's probably ok for Ryan Church to do it too.

The Titanic is a different kettle of fish - it's a real ship which actually sank in real life. If you make a film about it you want to recreate it faithfully. The Enterprise is not real and expectations of FX change.

I am totally cool with anyone who doesn't like the new design, I'm just arguing that the sacred cow of the original design was pretty much sacrificed back in the seventies.
right on the money!
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-18-2008, 01:30 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
If I'm right (the Saint told me and he is never wrong) the original Enterprise was designed by Walter M. Jeffries, the same designer who did the core design work for Star Trek the Motion Picture and Phase II. He recognised the Enterprise needed updating way back in the seventies. I've always believed (does anyone have any evidence either way?) the "refit" was a script excuse to try to explain away the fact that the designers changed almost everything about the original ship, inside and out (and they thought the fans might get pissy).

Even Jeffries the original designer had to change more than just superficial elements of the Enterprise to update it to a modern audience. I think that if he did it, it's probably ok for Ryan Church to do it too.

The Titanic is a different kettle of fish - it's a real ship which actually sank in real life. If you make a film about it you want to recreate it faithfully. The Enterprise is not real and expectations of FX change.

I am totally cool with anyone who doesn't like the new design, I'm just arguing that the sacred cow of the original design was pretty much sacrificed back in the seventies.
I'm cool with whatever design they put up, but I don't think updating something for the sake of pleasing and audience is enough of a justification. Lots of people still like classic cars etc. Simply put, there is nothing wrong with the TOS E to make her less appealing than she was in her day.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-18-2008, 01:46 PM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
I'm cool with whatever design they put up, but I don't think updating something for the sake of pleasing and audience is enough of a justification. Lots of people still like classic cars etc. Simply put, there is nothing wrong with the TOS E to make her less appealing than she was in her day.
That's an interesting point, well said. I hadn't thought about TOS Enterprise design as a classic car.

It's probably a case of commercial realities. Star Trek is a mass market film (at a $150m price tag it needs to be worth the investors spending the money) and ultimately pleasing the audience is an important consideration. It's not a bad thing, after all TOS was born in a commercial arena too.
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 11:34 AM.


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.