TMP's Enterprise reveal...

[Commander Troi]

That was really interesting! I'm not surprised there are so many "invisible CGI" effects, but it does seem strange everyone is promoting the practical effects so much. Is it really a snobbishness in fandom? Or some kind of "CGI burnout"? I mean, there definitely was a time, especially early on with CGI, where it was too much and too obvious and often overwhelmed the story. However, we are not in those days anymore. It seems obvious that the combo of practical and CGI is giving us better and more realistic effects than we've ever seen before. When we can't tell the difference, is there really one?

 

[fireproof78]

I never found it all that moving aside from Kirk's reaction. It is slow, and ponderous, which is fine of course.

I don't need it sped up but I'll always think it goes just a bit too long to the point of gratuitousness.

But, Fireproof, that's the point! To be gratuitous.

Well, I'm not big on gratuitous displays.

 

[Qonundrum]

Indeed..

It’s one of my gripes with modern trek. The cgi has become unrealistic. With models the look real because they are.
In the early days of cgi there was a good blend of model and cgi. First contact and generarations did a great job at this.
Even Ds9 voyager and enterprise still holds up ok with their use of cgi.

VOY's holds up for the story elements being conveyed. Like TOS-R, the polygonal count seems low - as much as they could do with the allotted funds, but they knew when to give the most to the sweeps week and/or narratively strongest episodes.

The ships also fly around now like crazy, I can’t remember any majestic shots in nu-trek that come to mind.
The ships are now maneuverable like x-wings from Star Wars..

Also, the ships pop in and out like the hyperdrive hyperspace hyperactive fleets as well. Laws of physics prevailing, I preferred the nuance of TOS films and TNG where the starfield streaks "slowly" dissipate after leaving warp (plus those inertial inhibitors that prevent turning everything in the inside into gooey messes), though in a sense, if you're going to decelerate from 1,199,169,832 meters per second to 49,998 or even 4.9 meters per second, from our visual perspective it'd look like a zippy whizzy effect too, to be fair... then again, the viewer (us) being in a static position, it'd still whoosh beyond field of vision fairly fast.

Hmmm, in "majestic", take out the "j", "s", "e", "t", put in a "g", add a space at the end, then replace the four yanked letters. Somehow, "magic jest" describes some of the overuse of modern CGI...

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I like the Enterprise flyby, but I can totally see how it would irritate some viewers, as it does go on for quite a bit. It'd certainly be a lot harder to take without Jerry Goldsmith's majestic score.

I think you have to look at it in the context of its time, though. This was fans' first good look at the ship in over 10 years, so it was both reuniting with an old friend and letting us drink in all the changes of this new version. And I like how the sequence gradually teases us before the full reveal, starting out with only fleeting glimpses of the ship through the Spacedock scaffolding before finally letting us get an unobstructed view of the front.

It does serve a story purpose, though. You see Kirk and Scotty (5'10 and 5'11" respectively, according to a quick Google search) step into the transport shuttle, which is a fairly small vehicle, about the size of a van. Then you see their shuttle next to the Enterprise, giving you a more complete idea of the ship's scale than you ever got on the TV series. The slow flyby really drills the scale of the ship into your head so that when you see the interior of V'Ger utterly dwarfing the Enterprise later in the film, it has an impact. It's a similar effect to seeing the Enterprise dwarfed by the immensity of Balok's ship in "The Corbomite Maneuver," only moreso. As others on the thread have pointed out, Robert Wise was REALLY good at establishing scale in his movies.

But the thing that drives me nuts whenever I see it today (as well as in the reuse of the footage in TWOK), is that when the shuttle travels between a spotlight and the Enterprise, it doesn't cast a shadow on the ship. They've never fixed that in any of the Upgraded Editions, either.

Rogue One would like a word. And I just keep this one on speed dial:

I've no idea what this link is, as all I'm seeing is text asking me to consent to third party cookies. Can you give me a Reader's Digest version of whatever this is?

 

[Tallguy]

I've no idea what this link is, as all I'm seeing is text asking me to consent to third party cookies. Can you give me a Reader's Digest version of whatever this is?

It's a series of youtube videos by an FX guy showing some of the recent movies (Barbie, Top Gun, Ford vs. Ferrari, anything by Christopher Nolan) that have touted "No CG for us! We built it all! It's all REAL" while the audience has nodded sagely "Yes, this is the way. We can always spot CG. We need the good old days of practical work which has weight and heft and just SMELLS real!".

He then goes through each one and shows the CRAP TON of CG that is used in these features. To the point where there is CG in the behind the scenes set footage to show off that there is no CG.

But the thing that drives me nuts whenever I see it today (as well as in the reuse of the footage in TWOK), is that when the shuttle travels between a spotlight and the Enterprise, it doesn't cast a shadow on the ship. They've never fixed that in any of the Upgraded Editions, either.

And that's fine. They fixed the missing travel pod on the office complex and while it's narratively correct it doesn't look visually right any more. (Maybe if they had added more than one? I don't know.)

OTOH, I don't like the added reflection of the Enterprise to put Kirk and the ship in the same shot. It's the only shot that suggests that the window is reflective and even if it is, it's not going to reflect a flat, undistorted image on that super curved window. But Wise was cool with it, so there you go.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It's a series of youtube videos by an FX guy showing some of the recent movies (Barbie, Top Gun, Ford vs. Ferrari, anything by Christopher Nolan) that have touted "No CG for us! We built it all! It's all REAL" while the audience has nodded sagely "Yes, this is the way. We can always spot CG. We need the good old days of practical work which has weight and heft and just SMELLS real!".

He then goes through each one and shows the CRAP TON of CG that is used in these features. To the point where there is CG in the behind the scenes set footage to show off that there is no CG.

Thanks. That sounds very familiar, so I think I might have seen that or something like that. What's the name of the channel? I might be following them.

OTOH, I don't like the added reflection of the Enterprise to put Kirk and the ship in the same shot. It's the only shot that suggests that the window is reflective and even if it is, it's not going to reflect a flat, undistorted image on that super curved window. But Wise was cool with it, so there you go.

I love that addition, because it visually illustrates what Kirk is feeling in that moment. He's overjoyed to see his ship again, even under these less than ideal circumstances. The window curvature issue honestly never occurred to me, and even now I don't particularly care, because it enhances Kirk's character arc. The shadow thing rankles just because I know objects cast shadows, and I can't ignore the fact that it's missing in that shot.

 

[Tallguy]

Thanks. That sounds very familiar, so I think I might have seen that or something like that. What's the name of the channel? I might be following them.

It's The Movie Rabbit Hole.

The window curvature issue honestly never occurred to me, and even now I don't particularly care, because it enhances Kirk's character arc. The shadow thing rankles just because I know objects cast shadows, and I can't ignore the fact that it's missing in that shot.

Different people are bugged by different things. And yes, I absolutely get the point of the window shot. (I think I've heard every person involved mention it. Possibly including Wise.)

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It's The Movie Rabbit Hole.

Thanks! And yep, it looks like I've watched the first three parts of that four-part series.

And yes, I absolutely get the point of the window shot. (I think I've heard every person involved mention it. Possibly including Wise.)

Oh, I didn't think I was telling you anything you didn't already know. I was just trying to explain why I liked that addition. I like most anything that enhances a character's arc.

 

[valkyrie013]

My first taste of Starship Pron.. Fell in love with her, and love the slow reveal, and Really wish they'd do it with the newer ships, especially named Enterprise.. Let us look at her!!

 

[Brannigan]

Ive always wondered: was it intentional that when we first see the ship its from the port side, which was famously left unfinished on the TOS model?

 

[Tallguy]

Ive always wondered: was it intentional that when we first see the ship its from the port side, which was famously left unfinished on the TOS model?

That occurs to me from time to time. In TMP do we ever see the STARBOARD side? I think the first time we see the TOS side of the ship is when the Enterprise arrives at Regula I in TWOK.

 

[CoveTom]

Different tastes for different people. I think the sequence in TMP is perfect. I wouldn't remove a second of it. I appreciate what Wise was doing in that sequence. I appreciate Doug Trumbull's "first person cinema" approach. And I could listen to Jerry Goldsmith's "The Enterprise" cue over and over and over again. It's just a beautiful sequence. It also really drives home Roddenberry's view that the Enterprise is a character unto herself.

 

[MarcKle1964]

That occurs to me from time to time. In TMP do we ever see the STARBOARD side? I think the first time we see the TOS side of the ship is when the Enterprise arrives at Regula I in TWOK.

I remember one of the TOS episodes, she did the flyby the other way. That's a premier tier trivia knowledge question for sure.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The entire movie is kinda slow and methodical, but it was great to have Star Trek back at that time. As I only watched TOS & TAS in reruns, this was the first ST that was "mine".

The Enterprise reveal is the absolute best part of the movie and I watch it any chance I get.

 

[Tallguy]

I remember one of the TOS episodes, she did the flyby the other way. That's a premier tier trivia knowledge question for sure.

Mirror Mirror we get to see the "other side" of the ship with reversed decals. And in Shore Leave the ship orbits the other way with backwards markings.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

In fact, I just went and watched the 4K remaster version of the scene on YT. Might be the most beautiful version of any spaceship ever (as much as I wish they had used the movie ad Mike Minor/Phase II version They would have made it just as purdy.)

 

[FredH]

That was really interesting! I'm not surprised there are so many "invisible CGI" effects, but it does seem strange everyone is promoting the practical effects so much. Is it really a snobbishness in fandom? Or some kind of "CGI burnout"? I mean, there definitely was a time, especially early on with CGI, where it was too much and too obvious and often overwhelmed the story. However, we are not in those days anymore. It seems obvious that the combo of practical and CGI is giving us better and more realistic effects than we've ever seen before. When we can't tell the difference, is there really one?

I think it’s because there’s still a sense of weight when something’s actually physically there and actors are interacting with it, which even modern CGI doesn’t have. Modern CGI looks realistic, but it sort of feels like looking at a moving photo of something as opposed to looking at the actual thing. That’s an inexact simile that probably doesn’t hold up, but that’s how it often feels to me, in Marvel movies etc.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I love the Refit Enterprise, it's a beautiful miniature and one of my favourite designs in science fiction, but I just wasn't born with the patience to sit through the long VFX shots in that movie. I'd find myself sketching the Enterprise on a notepad instead of looking at it, just to give my brain something to do.

I have the same problem with 2001: A Space Odyssey; I can't just relax and take in the imagery, I want to fast-forward to the bit where something happens. Which turns 2001 into a very short movie, incidentally.

 

[somebuddyX]

I'm not fond of it but that's probably because I think TWOK does a better job with the same footage and I don't like TMP and have no real affinity for it taking so long. I like the universe and look of TMP but just not this story.

 

[David cgc]

But the thing that drives me nuts whenever I see it today (as well as in the reuse of the footage in TWOK), is that when the shuttle travels between a spotlight and the Enterprise, it doesn't cast a shadow on the ship. They've never fixed that in any of the Upgraded Editions, either.

If you think about how the shadow is falling on the curve of the hull, the spotlight is coming from directly below, maybe even a little on the far side of the ship, so the pod flying next to and above the hotspot on the hull would be casting a shadow from the same light on the ceiling of the drydock, not on the ship. I remember there was an FAQ or interview or something when it first came out where the DE team talked about considering adding that shadow, but plotting it out and realizing it was already correct.