Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise

I don't know, It kind of looks like a spoon.

-=MadMan=-

 

They also love thier bowling, so they know where to draw the line.

 

Couldn't have said it any better myself, Timo. Which is usually par for the course. You should run for President..

Rob

 

Just a few words on this from me:

I was born too late to watch TOS in its original run. I'm in that "males 18-34" demographic. I use Apple computers, I play some of the latest video games, and I rather enjoy Star Wars. I am a creative writer by profession, and my science background and knowledge of the real space program equate to, at best, "lay enthusiast."

I read this entire thread and have been thinking an awful lot about the new Enterprise. I think it's worth noting that I would absolutely have paid money to see a slight makeover of the original Enterprise--a la Vektor's work--up on the big screen.

If I'm the target audience for this revamp, then in my case, they just didn't hit the bullseye. You know how no one hears the word "Godzilla" and thinks of the 1998 American film version? I imagine the latter was targeted at me, too.

I believe the original Enterprise has a timeless quality, one that a slight polish for the modern silver screen would only have accentuated. She's a character--and of all of them, she could have gotten away without being recast. How I'd have enjoyed seeing her up there.

 

I couldn't agree more.

And the comparison to "Godzilla on Broadway" isn't lost on me, either. I really sort of LIKED the look of the "new Godzilla" as a movie monster... but it wasn't GODZILLA, it was something entirely different. Now, as far as the rest of the movie is concerned, that wasn't so great... but the creature itself was very cool - just too different.

And the same arguments were being made... "Godzilla is a giant lizard... we've given you a giant lizard. What are you complaining about?" That rings, to me, the same way that "well, we've given you a saucer, a secondary hull and two nacelles... what are you complaining about?"

One has to wonder what they could have accomplished if they'd tried to make a Godzilla flick that simultaneously used the latest techniques AND respected the source material... but because they screwed it up so royally, I guess we're not going to find out anytime soon, huh?

The parallels to this movie are disturbingly close...

 

The biggest problem with "Godzilla" was choosing Roland Emmerich as director and Executive Producer... Thank goodness he wasn't handed the keys to the franchise!

 

I don't dislike the new design, but not over joyed with it either.

I think where part of the design mis-connect is that Abrams told the designers that he wanted the new Enterprise to be a combination of the TOS era and TMP ships. And the result is a forced marriage of the two designs that looks slightly askew/unbalanced.

Since this movie is a "reboot", I think we would have wound up with a better ship if Abrams instructed the designers to "ignore everything that came after TOS, and give a modern update to the Enterprise".

There is also the inherit obstacle that the Jefferies/Probert TMP Enterprise is considered such a work-of-art, that it's almost impossible to compete (and top) with that design.

 

Thirded. Like JNG, I'm in their target demographic, and would have been enthusiastic to pay money to see a big-budget-film quality version of the classic E (or the classic Godzilla for that matter).

I'll see your 'disturbingly close' and raise you an 'I have a bad feeling about this...'

 

So you guys are saying that with the original Godzilla design you would have liked the remake? Or maybe you would have like the new Godzilla a bit if the movie hadn't been as bad? I'm going to guess no on the first, maybe on the second. I'm not a huge fan of the new Enterprise, but that may change if the movie turns out as cool as I'm hoping it will.

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I already gave my answer to that...

 

Okay, Rick, how close is this?



(Apologies to Ancient, btw)

 

I hate to weigh in on this topic as it has pretty much been covered from most angles at this point... and even worse is the fact that nothing that we say or do is going to change anything anyways, but I thought I would point out something I had noticed pretty early on (actually before we even saw the new design).

One of the major arguments against the original design is that it just wouldn't hold up on the big screen. The argument generally goes that the elements are dated or there just isn't enough detail for audiences to believe in the design. But I've been looking at the other ship that shares screen time with the new design and it totally undercuts those points completely.

While looking at the Kelvin what I see is a very basic design, even more utilitarian than the original TOS Enterprise. And if you rearrange and rescale many of the design elements into the basic layout of the original you end up with a much simpler design.

​

I'm not saying that I like this version any better than what we are going to be given in this film... but at least I could see something like this eventually becoming the TOS version.

I'm not sure that there is anything more I could add to this type of critique of the new bridge. It pretty much touches on all it's weak points.

What I would say is that not enough people have looked at the original bridge design. And I'm not talking about the normal TOS version, I'm talking about The Cage version.

In my opinion, the best science fiction designs are less detailed and more open to future interpretations. To that end, the original bridge set elements actually avoided elements that would have dated it in many ways (like having what appeared to be a large single display over each station with images arranged in ways similar to how we manage GUI windows on our displays today).

If I were asked to design the bridge for this film, I would have started with that general design, much like this version by Ptrope...

and then had the actors interface with it very similar to how the characters did in Minority Report working with their computers in the Precrime Unit's control room. We would have had something very much like the original while still quite beyond what we have today (and not all that different from what would eventually be used in TNG).

This type of stuff (I'm assuming) wouldn't have effected the story being told, wouldn't have effected an audience unfamiliar with TOS, and would have given us something like what we had without having to reinvent the wheel.

But all this is water under the Bridge-slash-Revlon commercial set.

 

Yeah, that bridge looks nothing like a bridge on the Enterprise!

Oh, wait...

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvh/ch17/tvh1073.jpg

Well, that movie was a box-office bomb just like Nemesis!

Oh, wait...

It sold the second most tickets, was the second most profitable Trek movie, and earned four Academy Award nominations.

Well, that's the films -- the original Enterprise would never look like that on TV!

Oh, wait....

http://www.trekmania.net/conference/behind_scenes/bridge1.jpg (cut 'n' paste the link in your browser)

I guess the bridge is more consistent with past designs than many people care to admit.

 

And HOW long was that 'all white' Bridge set in view for Trek IV? Less than two minutes? And wasn't it completely and totally redone for Trek V? Not exactly a selling point there. Let's ignore the fact that, other than being white, the Trek IV bridge doesn't look at all like the 'Revlon Set' we've seen for NuTrek. We don't have the desk lamps, barcode scanners, and flood-lights in everyone's face.

 

The people who are arguing this way aren't doing so to try to convince anyone... only to try to "score points." And "white bridge = white bridge" seems to be a point to be scored.

Shaw, that bridge station is exactly what I've been talking about for ages... the top section being one big display panel... but I still like real physical buttons (harder to make inadvertent mistakes that way... part of why touch-screens are NEVER used for real-world critical applications, only for "convenience" ones). (and yes, I know, I know, i'ts Ptrope's not yours... )

 

The 'all white' bridge from IV was heavily damaged due to a storm between Treks IV & V so they chose to design a new version when they made V.

Technically a canon violation (well not really it could take less than 3 weeks to replace the bridge module, and it was still in pieces even the Captains chair wasnt bolted down properly) but it did introduce my favourite style of bridge which follows on nicely from the TOS set. With a few small changes it would have been perfect.

 

The fact remains that, right now, we've seen more footage of the TVH bridge than we have the STXI bridge.

The bridge had a makeover between every Trek film. That includes between TWOK and TSFS (which are supposedly more or less continuous) -- suddenly the bridge got a white and red floor (instead of gray and black) and additional lighting that is brighter and more colorful:

TWOK: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/artoftrek/er-bridge-st2-2.jpg
TSFS: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/artoftrek/er-bridge-st3.jpg

So if a bridge makeover happens between every Trek film, that's not a selling point for you either.

It might not have the barcode scanners, but your lighting objections are still there -- bright spotlights every foot along the ceiling shining down on every station, bright lights shining up from the floor into everyone's eyes (a hold-over from TMP), and white paint to reflect it everywhere.

 

You're factually in error here, the lighting on the Trek IV bridge is the same as the other movies (except for TMP), since they used the same plans for the lighting layouts. It simple does not have the abundance of lights that NuTrek has. In fact, other than the bridge being white, there's no other simularities between them.

I'm not trying to 'score points' here, but I am saying that you're full of ca-ca in this regard if you're trying to paint the conclusion that the NuTrek bridge is "just like" the bridges we've seen in all the other movies and TV shows.

 

You want to tell me that this bridge from TWOK...

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/twok/ch4/twok0214.jpg

... is lit that same as this bridge from TVH?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvh/ch17/tvh1073.jpg

You're kidding me, right?

Did I say that? Who ever said that? You're building a straw man here.

I'm just saying that there is a precedent for white, brightly lit bridges.

 

For TVH it's actually a rebuilt set, built from the exact same plans as TWOK. (And, TWOK, of course, used 'dark' lighting for the damage and military feel...) You may not believe it, but all the hardware is in nearly the exact same places.

No you're not. Don't try lying to me.

You were saying that the NuTrek bridge is within the same design criteria as those of the movies, and even of the TV series. Your 3:59 post tried to claim that the NuTrek bridge looked the same as the bridges past. And, I said, that other than the bridges just being white, there was no other significant aesthetic simularity.