Star Trek VFX Preview

[Bob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6lNYBgeiuk

Not much to see yet, but looks like they're doing that handheld BSG/Firefly look.

[AAlgar]

Hey neat, a friend just e-mailed this to me.

[Jonny Z]

i really hope they modernize the look of the enterprise...

[Bob]

Hey neat, now I know where to find AAlgar during the work-day.

[Jason California]

I think its cool that they used a real model....

and yeah I am really hoping they use the opportunity to update everything tech wise...Archers Enterprise looked a lot more advanced than Kirks.

I sure as hell hope they update the Starfleet uniform

[AAlgar]

I think its cool that they used a real model....

and yeah I am really hoping they use the opportunity to update everything tech wise...Archers Enterprise looked a lot more advanced than Kirks.

I sure as hell hope they update the Starfleet uniform

That was one of the things I did not like about Enterprise. There is a way to stay true to the classic designs and still make things look more modern. That show did not pull it off, IMO.

The episode of Deep Space Nine where they traveled back to the original series era (Trials and Tribble-ations) did a much better job. The CG models of the classic Enterprise, the Klingon cruiser and the space station were completely faithful but looked a lot more detailed, and we got to see them from many angles instead of just one or two canned shots.

[WAKKAJAWAKKA]

Very Cool.

Wayno.

[mike black]

I call shenanigans...

[Skatonic10]

And how do we know this is real? Looks like anyone could have done this with a little computer magic

[WAKKAJAWAKKA]

And how do we know this is real?

We Don't?

Wayno.

[AAlgar]

Bob (who has been a real-life pal of mine for 15+ years) probably won't come back to defend himself, but I can vouch that he's not easily fooled by hoaxes. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have shared it if it was fake.

[WAKKAJAWAKKA]

Bob (who has been a real-life pal of mine for 15+ years) probably won't come back to defend himself, but I can vouch that he's not easily fooled by hoaxes. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have shared it if it was fake.

Well If You Say Someone I Never Met Can't Be Fooled, I Am Convinced.

Wayno.

[Taxman]

Bob (who has been a real-life pal of mine for 15+ years) probably won't come back to defend himself, but I can vouch that he's not easily fooled by hoaxes. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have shared it if it was fake.It's a trap!

[AAlgar]

Well If You Say Someone I Never Met Can't Be Fooled, I Am Convinced.

Wayno.

:lol:

Dick.

Just saying... he's no dummy. Also, he works in video production.

[Bob]

A colleague of mine has a friend who's working on the VFX team for the new movie. Unfortunately, I can't say who they are, or they might get fired for leaking. Still, I am led to believe this is legit.

[AAlgar]

A colleague of mine has a friend who's working on the VFX team for the new movie. Unfortunately, I can't say who they are, or they might get fired for leaking. Still, I am led to believe this is legit.

Friendly enough that we can get drunk on the new bridge?

[d.j.]

I sure as hell hope they update the Starfleet uniform

No way! If the ladies of the future aren't in mini skirts and go-go boots, I'll... uh... still see the movie.

[Bob]

Friendly enough that we can get drunk on the new bridge?

Unfortunately, VFX crew ≠ production set access. I don't think they're even in the same city.

[AAlgar]

Unfortunately, VFX crew ≠ production set access. I don't think they're even in the same city.

Can we get drunk in your basement and have him composite us on to the bridge?

[Bob]

Maybe they can send us a virtual set, and we can all get drunk somewhere where there's greenscreen.

[JBElliott]

i really hope they modernize the look of the enterprise...

The classic look is great. No need to change it.

[JBElliott]

I think its cool that they used a real model....

and yeah I am really hoping they use the opportunity to update everything tech wise...Archers Enterprise looked a lot more advanced than Kirks.

No it didn't.

When you can see all the panels and all the nuts and bolts, you're dealing with technology that's not all that much advanced than what we've got today. That's Archer's Enterprise.

When you can't see any of that stuff and it looks like the ship was produced en masse, then you're dealing with a technology that's far more advanced than what we've got today. That's Kirk's Enterprise.

[DaveCummings]

That was one of the things I did not like about Enterprise. There is a way to stay true to the classic designs and still make things look more modern. That show did not pull it off, IMO.


But the thing with Enterprise was that the designs and everything looked alot more feasible than TOS and the uniforms reminded me more of NASA flightsuits. I didn't want to defend that show, but I'm just saying.

[Lemonade Lady]

Archers Enterprise looked a lot more advanced than Kirks.

Kirk's was much more streamlined.

[Jason California]

No it didn't.

When you can see all the panels and all the nuts and bolts, you're dealing with technology that's not all that much advanced than what we've got today. That's Archer's Enterprise.

When you can't see any of that stuff and it looks like the ship was produced en masse, then you're dealing with a technology that's far more advanced than what we've got today. That's Kirk's Enterprise.

I see what you are saying, but I still think my way. I think the old Enterprise looked stiff and and the warp nacels had a much lower tech look to me. but i do hear you on the nuts and bolts aspect.

[AAlgar]

But the thing with Enterprise was that the designs and everything looked alot more feasible than TOS and the uniforms reminded me more of NASA flightsuits. I didn't want to defend that show, but I'm just saying.

I agree with that. I think they had a hard choice to make: favoring the established fiction or favoring reality. They chose reality.

What I would have considered (in the dream world where I get to control Star Trek) is just definitively saying "okay, Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe from ours. There was a eugenics war in the 90s, world war 3 in the 21st century, etc." Then you just develop the technology in different directions and there's no conflict.

[The Hodag]

Hmm, don't like that shaky-cam at all on Trek. The Trek movies, especially the earlier ones, did a great job of conveying heavy, naval battleships angling for position (Wrath of Khan being the champ, naturally), and putting that through the Galactica/Firefly filter just looks a bit cheesy. I don't think Trek needs that faux-"documenty filmmaker who can't focus" immediacy.

:-?

[The Hodag]

What I would have considered (in the dream world where I get to control Star Trek) is just definitively saying "okay, Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe from ours. There was a eugenics war in the 90s, world war 3 in the 21st century, etc." Then you just develop the technology in different directions and there's no conflict.

I've thought about that too, but I think Trek needs to at least feel like it's a vision of a possible future for us - even if that means pushing the timeline forward since we missed out on that Eugenics War. I want to say Trek doesn't need the added baggage of being in an alternate universe.

[The Dean]

It looks like space has a lot of waves...

I don't like it.

[JBElliott]

I see what you are saying, but I still think my way. I think the old Enterprise looked stiff and and the warp nacels had a much lower tech look to me. but i do hear you on the nuts and bolts aspect.

It's partly a matter of taste. But there's a lot of aerodynamic design that goes into a lot of the later designs of the Enterprise (e.g. swept back pylons connecting the nacelles) that are almost completely out of place on vessels that travel through the vacuum of space.

Plus, everyone knows that cylindrical symmetry is of utmost importance for creating a stable warp field. So the nacelles have to be long cylinders. http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/images/graemlins/LOLRomulan.gif

[Jason California]

I've thought about that too, but I think Trek needs to at least feel like it's a vision of a possible future for us - even if that means pushing the timeline forward since we missed out on that Eugenics War. I want to say Trek doesn't need the added baggage of being in an alternate universe.

I wouldn't say we missed out.


If comics can change their history to fit for these types of situations so can Star Trek.

THe defining moments should have been further out to avoid these types of errors though.

[FredC]

Wow, that is a BLATANT ripoff of the Firefly style... though I'm actually not complaining.

[Jason California]

It's partly a matter of taste. But there's a lot of aerodynamic design that goes into a lot of the later designs of the Enterprise (e.g. swept back pylons connecting the nacelles) that are almost completely out of place on vessels that travel through the vacuum of space.

Plus, everyone knows that cylindrical symmetry is of utmost importance for creating a stable warp field. So the nacelles have to be long cylinders. http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/images/graemlins/LOLRomulan.gif

I have always thought the idea of making an aerodynamic space ship was kind of funny.

[The Hodag]

The episode of Deep Space Nine where they traveled back to the original series era (Trials and Tribble-ations) did a much better job. The CG models of the classic Enterprise, the Klingon cruiser and the space station were completely faithful but looked a lot more detailed, and we got to see them from many angles instead of just one or two canned shots.

I think if they really want to reinvent the franchise for a new audience, they should take more liberties than that fun DS9 episode did. I'd even be okay with some fairly heavy uniform redesigns, as long as they kept to the unique department colors, the insignia, etc. The ship's basic form almost certainly needs to stay, though - just teched-up like the movies did.

But they may change less than I'd expect. It seems like there's definitely gonna be a time travel element with the possible goal of a new timeline created at the end, but until that new timeline is reached...theoretically everything will look old-school (just shinier).

[WinterRose]

If you like good graphics on the old ships an stuff, you'll want to look at Star Trek, New Voyages. Trust me.

[AAlgar]

I have always thought the idea of making an aerodynamic space ship was kind of funny.

I think the Enterprise was initially meant to be able to land, but it wasn't feasible, budget-wise, till Voyager.

[AAlgar]

If you like good graphics on the old ships an stuff, you'll want to look at Star Trek, New Voyages. Trust me.

Yeah, what I've seen of those has been pretty impressive, I have to say. And not even with the qualifier of "impressive for fan-made stuff." Honestly the only thing keeping me from watching them is laziness (not wanting to download 4 gig files one at a time.)

[WinterRose]

No it didn't.

When you can see all the panels and all the nuts and bolts, you're dealing with technology that's not all that much advanced than what we've got today. That's Archer's Enterprise.

When you can't see any of that stuff and it looks like the ship was produced en masse, then you're dealing with a technology that's far more advanced than what we've got today. That's Kirk's Enterprise.

You didn't see that stuff on the outside of Kirk's enterprise cos for the most part it had a paint job. Described in manuals as Thermocoat, the coating was later abandoned during Scott's refit of the Constitution class to the COnstitution II. The coating's tendecy to turn blue over time wasn't appreciated by the brass, and it dropped a few hundred tons from the ship's weight.

[AAlgar]

You didn't see that stuff on the outside of Kirk's enterprise cos for the most part it had a paint job. Described in manuals as Thermocoat, the coating was later abandoned during Scott's refit of the Constitution class to the COnstitution II. The coating's tendecy to turn blue over time wasn't appreciated by the brass, and it dropped a few hundred tons from the ship's weight.

Mass, you mean.

[JBElliott]

You didn't see that stuff on the outside of Kirk's enterprise cos for the most part it had a paint job. Described in manuals as Thermocoat, the coating was later abandoned during Scott's refit of the Constitution class to the COnstitution II. The coating's tendecy to turn blue over time wasn't appreciated by the brass, and it dropped a few hundred tons from the ship's weight.

That's not canon.

[Jason California]

That's not canon.

I wish Paramount would keep tight control on continuity like Lucas does so that they could include all the other stuff besides tv and movies

[WinterRose]

I have always thought the idea of making an aerodynamic space ship was kind of funny.


Aerodynamics in a spacebourne warship aren't entirely worthless. Providing a sleek or small profile makes it harder to hit, and more easily maneuverable through unexpected obstacles like asteroid fields and the like. While the Constitution is a neat shape, you don't have to try all that hard to hit it. (Interesting note. The original brief in the old show when Jeffries designed Enterprise was that she had that shape, but the dorsal and ventral were supposed to be reversed. They decided they liked what we're used to better.

[WinterRose]

That's not canon.

From "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" vetted through Paramount's continuity dept, and released around the time of ST4, when they retrofitted the USS Ti-Ho as the Enterprise class heavy cruiser, and gave her to Kirk.

[WinterRose]

Yeah, what I've seen of those has been pretty impressive, I have to say. And not even with the qualifier of "impressive for fan-made stuff." Honestly the only thing keeping me from watching them is laziness (not wanting to download 4 gig files one at a time.)

The files aren't THAT big I don't think. Really man. Treat yourself.

[Master Jack Rabbitt]

It's a trap!

Get an ax!

[KAK]

Looks fan made to me, and not to my liking

[JBElliott]

Aerodynamics in a spacebourne warship aren't entirely worthless. Providing a sleek or small profile makes it harder to hit, and more easily maneuverable through unexpected obstacles like asteroid fields and the like. While the Constitution is a neat shape, you don't have to try all that hard to hit it. (Interesting note. The original brief in the old show when Jeffries designed Enterprise was that she had that shape, but the dorsal and ventral were supposed to be reversed. They decided they liked what we're used to better.

You suffer from the same problem as Kahn, two dimensional thinking. Unless the ship is a slim cylinder, then there's some angle which provides an easier target.

As to maneuverablility, given the movement of the Enterprise is via warping space, it's not clear what shape would be most beneficial. Given that the shape of the ship is as it appears on screen, it stands to reason that that shape is the one that lends to the most maneuverablility.

With regards to asteroid fields, that's what navigational deflectors are for.

[JBElliott]

From "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" vetted through Paramount's continuity dept, and released around the time of ST4, when they retrofitted the USS Ti-Ho as the Enterprise class heavy cruiser, and gave her to Kirk.

That's true, but it's still not onscreen canon.

If it's really a few hundred tons, then thermocoat has a density of about one fifth that of water.

[KAK]

This looks better

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/NX-47/Trek%20related/enterprise_orbit_800.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZ0VScAMaI

[AAlgar]

The files aren't THAT big I don't think. Really man. Treat yourself.

I may be confusing it with the other one. There are two fan-made productions that are quite well put-together. Both have gotten actors and writers from the original series involved. One is set during the "lost years" of the 5-year mission and I think one is set in the TNG era. One of them really does have full-blown DVD images (4.7 gigs) for download, and that was just too daunting for me. It could have been the other one, I suppose.

[WinterRose]

That's true, but it's still not onscreen canon.

If it's really a few hundred tons, then thermocoat has a density of about one fifth that of water.

Hell with onscreen canon. They used the design documents from the movies for the book. I mean I suppose I could go dig it out of the box it's in to find out exactly how much tonnage the thermocoat added to the thing's weight. But I'm trick or treating in City of heroes just now.

[Chris McCarver]

Anyone see (Galactica FX guy) Gabe Koerner's CG rendition of a modern 1701?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP6PEVWyGF0

It's got a lot of dead air on the beginning and end, fair warning.

[WinterRose]

You suffer from the same problem as Kahn, two dimensional thinking. Unless the ship is a slim cylinder, then there's some angle which provides an easier target.

As to maneuverablility, given the movement of the Enterprise is via warping space, it's not clear what shape would be most beneficial. Given that the shape of the ship is as it appears on screen, it stands to reason that that shape is the one that lends to the most maneuverablility.

With regards to asteroid fields, that's what navigational deflectors are for.

Were the shape of Enterprise's hull integral to efficient warp travel, then scientists from the different races would have evolved their designs into a similar shape. That many races, the romulans in particular who typically have superior tech, evolved entirely different shapes would put that theory into considerable doubt.

As to two dimensional thinking, The Enterprise shows a pretty hittable profile from any angle. Particularly if you're coming at her dorsally or ventrally. The only angles that provide a somewhat reduced profile are directly fore and aft. (See: Khan missing kirk with a torpedo as it passes between the nacelle struts and to the right of the bridge between primary and secondary hulls.)

As for navigational deflectors... a contrivance for poor design.

I love my ships more than any crewman that helped pilot them through space. (With the exception of Seven. YOW!) Against my starship kung-fu, there is no can defense. Were I you, I would not presume to debate me.

[The Hodag]

This looks better

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/NX-47/Trek%20related/enterprise_orbit_800.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZ0VScAMaI

Papa like.

[AAlgar]

Were the shape of Enterprise's hull integral to efficient warp travel, then scientists from the different races would have evolved their designs into a similar shape. That many races, the romulans in particular who typically have superior tech, evolved entirely different shapes would put that theory into considerable doubt.

As to two dimensional thinking, The Enterprise shows a pretty hittable profile from any angle. Particularly if you're coming at her dorsally or ventrally. The only angles that provide a somewhat reduced profile are directly fore and aft. (See: Khan missing kirk with a torpedo as it passes between the nacelle struts and to the right of the bridge between primary and secondary hulls.)

As for navigational deflectors... a contrivance for poor design.

I love my ships more than any crewman that helped pilot them through space. (With the exception of Seven. YOW!) Against my starship kung-fu, there is no can defense. Were I you, I would not presume to debate me.

You crack me up, man. Never change. :heart:

[Chris McCarver]

This looks better

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/NX-47/Trek%20related/enterprise_orbit_800.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZ0VScAMaI

Whoops, didn't realize mine was just another clip of that same ship. My bad. :)

[The Hodag]

Were the shape of Enterprise's hull integral to efficient warp travel, then scientists from the different races would have evolved their designs into a similar shape. That many races, the romulans in particular who typically have superior tech, evolved entirely different shapes would put that theory into considerable doubt.

As to two dimensional thinking, The Enterprise shows a pretty hittable profile from any angle. Particularly if you're coming at her dorsally or ventrally. The only angles that provide a somewhat reduced profile are directly fore and aft. (See: Khan missing kirk with a torpedo as it passes between the nacelle struts and to the right of the bridge between primary and secondary hulls.)

As for navigational deflectors... a contrivance for poor design.

I love my ships more than any crewman that helped pilot them through space. (With the exception of Seven. YOW!) Against my starship kung-fu, there is no can defense. Were I you, I would not presume to debate me.

Wow, it's uh...

It's gettin' nerdy in here. Even for a comics board.

(said with Trek love) :)

[WinterRose]

You crack me up, man. Never change. :heart:

Oh ya don't know the half of it. I've built Enterprise probably 3 times now. The last time in the very early 90's. I used the old channels they left in the AMT molds (back in 1980, it came with christmas lights to wire it up with and light it from the inside.) and lined the inside with incredibly bent wire hangers.

You know how enterprise, when it breaks, typically, it's where the nacelle strut meets the secondary hull? Not with my steel in it. My Constitution II class survived a TORNADO.

And that's not even getting into the fuck-ton of ships and fightercraft I keep in my image directories. Gimme a pic of a spaceship, and I'll save it.

The part that makes me a geek is that I'm not embarassed. I'm way proud.

[The Hodag]

Something I've always liked about the handling of the Trek ships in the movies was the emphasis on a low rumble when they're passing the camera. It really conveys a feeling of size and naval might, and sometimes even a certain eerieness. That first shot of the Reliant in Wrath of Khan, innocuous as it should be with just the ship gliding over Ceti Alpha V, portends a definite menace. It just wouldn't be the same with the ships all zipping around, and it's why I got frustrated when they started showing the ships flying around like Star Wars X-Wings and TIE fighters in some of the movies (First Contact's big battle with the Borg) and DS9. That submarine/battleship massiveness is one of the very things that makes Trek's space battles unique. I'd hate to lose it.

[Jason California]

Anyone see (Galactica FX guy) Gabe Koerner's CG rendition of a modern 1701?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP6PEVWyGF0

It's got a lot of dead air on the beginning and end, fair warning.

thats pretty keen

[JBElliott]

This looks better

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/NX-47/Trek%20related/enterprise_orbit_800.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZ0VScAMaI

Ugh! No it doesn't! :twisted:

It might work for a ship somewhere between the NX-01 and the 1701.

[JBElliott]

Were the shape of Enterprise's hull integral to efficient warp travel, then scientists from the different races would have evolved their designs into a similar shape. That many races, the romulans in particular who typically have superior tech, evolved entirely different shapes would put that theory into considerable doubt.

That much is true, sort of. The Vulcan ships in "Enterprise" had a much different design. However, the Klingons and Romulans all had the twin nacelle design in TOS suggesting that that design is essential to warp ships not desgined by people as smart as the Vulcans. Even TNG Romulan ships had the dual nacelles though they were connected to the ship differently.


As to two dimensional thinking, The Enterprise shows a pretty hittable profile from any angle. Particularly if you're coming at her dorsally or ventrally. The only angles that provide a somewhat reduced profile are directly fore and aft. (See: Khan missing kirk with a torpedo as it passes between the nacelle struts and to the right of the bridge between primary and secondary hulls.)

That wasn't the point, i.e. I wasn't arguing that the shape of the Enterprise made for a poor target, only any ship design will have a larger cross from some angle and that in d = 3 space all it takes is some manuvering to find the largest cross section.


As for navigational deflectors... a contrivance for poor design.

Nope, they're an absolute necessity for any design, as are "inertial dampeners." Read "The Physics of Star Trek" some time and find out why. It's an easy read that took me only a few hours.


I love my ships more than any crewman that helped pilot them through space. (With the exception of Seven. YOW!) Against my starship kung-fu, there is no can defense. Were I you, I would not presume to debate me.

I'm not debating you, just telling you the way things are. http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/images/graemlins/LOLRomulan.gif

[Foolish Mortal]

That was one of the things I did not like about Enterprise. There is a way to stay true to the classic designs and still make things look more modern. That show did not pull it off, IMO.
Trek continuity had been changed anyway, so there's not much point in trying to make everything look exactly as it did in the old series.

[WinterRose]

That much is true, sort of. The Vulcan ships in "Enterprise" had a much different design. However, the Klingons and Romulans all had the twin nacelle design in TOS suggesting that that design is essential to warp ships not desgined by people as smart as the Vulcans. Even TNG Romulan ships had the dual nacelles though they were connected to the ship differently.

As long as we're bringing the nextgen into this, then I'm sure you have explanations for Nacelle-less designs like Cardassian, Krenim, Borg, and Ferengi ships.


That wasn't the point, i.e. I wasn't arguing that the shape of the Enterprise made for a poor target, only any ship design will have a larger cross from some angle and that in d = 3 space all it takes is some manuvering to find the largest cross section.

Accepted.


Nope, they're an absolute necessity for any design, as are "inertial dampeners." Read "The Physics of Star Trek" some time and find out why. It's an easy read that took me only a few hours.

Physics tends to be something of a dry subject. But I understand the need for them as a plot contrivance to keep bullet sized meteorites from machine-gunning the crew through the tritanium hull. But that doesn't excuse a maneuverable design. Enterprise isn't all OVER the place like say... oh... A Shadow Destroyer from B-5. But say you had to navigate her down a narrow corridor of some sort, and she presents a design problem that a good navigator can't get around.

There's no practical reason for Enterprise's design. She's weird looking. And has been decried by model builders and sci fi fans alike down the years as an impractcal design.


I'm not debating you, just telling you the way things are.

Your logic is partially based on a false premise, at least as far as the dual nacelle design goes anyway.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

An Apre Star Trek "origin story" would never work, especially because Ape William Shatner would go, well, manshit over it.

[AAlgar]

An Apre Star Trek "origin story" would never work, especially because Ape William Shatner would go, well, manshit over it.

Just imagining his encounter with Koko the gorilla boggles the mind.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Just imagining his encounter with Koko the gorilla boggles the mind.

This is the best new trend that only you and I care about.

[AAlgar]

This is the best new trend that only you and I care about.

If I could only find a way to combine the ape references with Arrested Development quotes, I'd never go back to speaking human English.

[Flonk]

Looks good. I'm really looking foward to this. And I was never really a fan of the original series.

[Flonk]

If you like good graphics on the old ships an stuff, you'll want to look at Star Trek, New Voyages. Trust me.

What is it?

[Flonk]

This looks better

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/NX-47/Trek%20related/enterprise_orbit_800.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZ0VScAMaI

I just came a little.

[Adrian B AWESOME]

Nerds.

[Flonk]

If I could only find a way to combine the ape references with Arrested Development quotes, I'd never go back to speaking human English.

But where did the bannana come from?

[mike black]

A colleague of mine has a friend who's working on the VFX team for the new movie. Unfortunately, I can't say who they are, or they might get fired for leaking. Still, I am led to believe this is legit.

While I appreciate the confirmation of it's authenticity...


I am highly disappointed, and care for this movie even less now.

[Foolish Mortal]

While I appreciate the confirmation of it's authenticity...


I am highly disappointed, and care for this movie even less now.
What's "disappointing" about it?