I really like the larger shuttlepod- the one used seems dangerously thin and without any emergency equipment- or even chairs!
[ October 29, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Topher ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Ditto. If the original "flying office room" design was indeed done at Roddenberry's insistence, I must withdraw from the heretofore defensible position that the man contributed nothing positive to Trek after TOS...
It's cool as a concept, stylish in execution, and would have looked really cute on screen. Especially if Wise played it for the surprise factor: Kirk and Scotty enter a furnished office, Kirk sits on a couch, Scotty presses a button, and the office flies away to meet the starship!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
That would have been cool. Hey, a sci-fi idea. For a sci-fi movie. What a concept. Though what would they have done for Regula in the second film?
It's great getting these inside stories on the production of the movies. It's little stuff. Insignificant, maybe. But I likes me some dirt.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Brings a whole new meaning to "flying a desk," ho-ho.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Workbee... bulldozer?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Gives a whole new meaning to Extreme Makeover: Starship Edition I guess...
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
A workbee bulldozer makes sense. In ST:V when the shuttle crashes in the shuttlebay, a bulldozer would be handy for clearing the bay floor for future landings etc.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
....gurgle.... Had visions of that scene from the Wing Commander movie for a moment there.
B.J.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I can't say I'm fond of the flying office concept, myself. It smacks too much of the whole 1970s-leisure-suit asethetic that so dates part of the film. Like, perhaps it is just me, but the series interiors look less out of date today than, for instance, the furniture in that lounge.
I guess I got off track a little, but my point, I think, is that flying around in a cubicle is pretty much the opposite of cool.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Maybe not a real shuttle office - but an office that can be detached from one ship that the engineer is working on and reattached to another makes a certain amount of sense.
I hang around at a shipyard these days and the engineers work in trailers that are moved from ship to ship with a crane (not very often) (everybody gets out first).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd be happy if all the aux craft from TMP looked even slightly practical.
It's SPACE guys- shit is bound to happen,and TMP shows us all sorts of mechanical failures) so workbees and travelpods with paper thin hulls, no seats and no obvious emergency or EVA equipment just does not work for me.
I'd prefer the large detachable "office" module that could be outfitted for any munber of uses to several specalty craft (transport, repair, construction, cargo hauling, etc.).
The big office thing coud even serve as a dockmaster's platform to oversee the various construction efforts.
I see a job for the DAC forum.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
All kinds of failures? An untested ship that has one transporter failure and engines that don't work right cause they fire them up too soon is hardly "all sorts". Even they are isolated to the Enterprise. Everything else works fine.
And there's no reason to think paper thin isn't strong. I somehow doubt they're building out of aluminum.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's also the question of acceptable risk. A warehouse forklift of today is a deathtrap if a shelf collapses on top of it: the protective frame atop the driver's seat won't help when the thing is lying on its side, like it will be after meeting said shelf.
Should the forklifts be built with greater gauge to prevent tilting over, and with reinforced side doors? Their operators would be the first to say no: that would defeat the purpose of these useful tools.
You don't wear EVA gear in a workbee any more than you wear a parachute when cleaning skyscraper windows or scuba gear when working on a bridge across a river. There are subtler safety measures available for such things.
TOS already sets a precedent on 23rd century attitudes towards working in space. The shuttles have no obvious EVA gear, either...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Simply put, the Workbee *is* your EVA gear.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Anyway, I simply doubt that with existence of tractor beam technology anyone would trouble themselves to design such low-tech solution to... I can't even imagine what sort of troubles would require small workbee bulldozer to come and happily... bulldoze something.
Well yeah, there are those shuttle crashes... but this workbee looks far too small for such job Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Also, who says workbees are space-only? They look like they'd hold up well in an atmosphere. Maybe they could actually be a bulldozer for, y'know, moving earth and stuff.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
But what is the point of using space-capable vehicle as ground bulldozer? This is theoretically possible, but... not very practical IMHO.
First, there's a matter of propulsion - that workbee would've to generate thrust to combat forces of gravity and neccesary thrust to actually move earth and stuff around.
And there's matter of practicality - what's wrong with old-fashioned approach, with wheels, threads and stuff? It would be cheaper and simpler to design ground bulldozer with classic treads IMHO.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
How do you know the bulldozer attachment doesn't contain whatever the contemporary form of ground-based propulsion is?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
And who says that it necessarily needs to be in a gravity environment? I mean, I imagine that if you're drilling or building on, say, the moon or an asteroid you're going to need a vehicle to push dirt, rocks, and the like out of the way.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A bulldozer in space would not work at all though- whatever your craft bulldozed ("collided with" is more accurate) would keep moving with the force of the intial impact.
A spacecraft moving materilas would need something to keep the transported material with the craft.
As to the Enterprise's malfunctions- I would not downplay their seriousness: the science officer and some other sap was turned inside out, then the ship is almost destroyed by the "wormhole effect" while zipping along at warp 1. Those are in the film to show that space is sometimes very dangerous for even "everyday" stuff, so an EVA locker and chairs in the travelpod would not have been excessive at all.
A lot of Probert's supposed "function" in his designs seems left out.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
But what is the bulldozer attachment creates a localized gravity field to keep the material together? Eh? EH? Or, how about it's usefulness in propelling large amounts of hippie protestors into space? Eh? EH?
Actually, my biggest problem with the travelpod was the doors. They keep pulled into the ship it docks to, and I'm left wondering how much confidence can be placed in the mechanism that prevents them from falling off in space. I just don't like that the doors can be pulled almost all the way out of the pod.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont like that the bulldozer atachment is...well, a bulldozer attachment! No diffrences in any way from what moves dirt on the ground in every construction site today. Reaaal high tech.
Besides, that part looks like crap on a Constructicon, and doubly so on a Trek ship. Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
What's wrong with bulldozers being replaced by tractor beams?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nothing! The sketch shows a bulldozer glued to the front of a workbee! They might as well have a steamshovel or a dumptruck attachment while they're at it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wait, what's wrong with the Constructicons?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Considering those are early doodles, my guess is that the bulldozer isn't intended ltierally, he's exploring the kinds of functions you might need in a construction yard. The final Work Bee's has grabber arms for carrying/manipulating/pushing.
And as to the functionality of Andy's designs, let's not forget that a lot of the final decisions are made by the producers and effects supervisors. And, for any flaws you might see, at least there's a sense in Andy's work that it's designed to be functional, unlike the ILM approach where you make some wonky shape greebled with detail. "Shroomdock" being a prime example.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hey I LOVE Space Dock. Was just examining a picture of it on the cover of the Star Trek III soundtrack LP today. I love the model work like in the movies - so much better than any CGI still... they're tangible, believable, functional.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The ILM approach goes for form over function because they are going for a sense of "wow" that can rarely stem from the thought out functionality Probert is talking about. It's hundreds of years in the future- not everything should be obvious in form and function. In many ways, TMP-STVI look less advanced than they should- particularly once Meyer started his "submarine" leanings in TWOK.
A blend of the two ideas is best I think Spacedock is cool as hell- waaaay better than that frail drydock structure they've re-used ad naseum.
Like Andrew, I love Spacedock....except it's too-small doors- that is just assinine.
ILM's approach is that not every aspect of far futuristic stuff designed (at least in part) by aliens would be recognizable, nor should it be explained away at the expense of/in place of -story.
I hate to say it, but if Probert designed Spacedock, it would probably look like ass. Functional as hell, but ugly as sin anyway.
look at the Office Complex /Regula as an example- it looks low tech. It looks like a 1970's building in space- all it needs is plastic plants in the lobby. Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Do you also think the Galaxy class, the Vulcan Shuttle, the Romulan Warbird and the Ferengi Marauder look "like ass"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not at all (well, mabye the Marauder with it's crab claw things and extending neck- what's with that crap?!?)
Probert's orders for TNG was to break away from the previous designs- which I think he did nicely for the most part.
That's not to say I think he could have designed a better Spacedock, Excelsior, Oberth, KBOP or any of the other ILM goodies from STIII.
TNG was also a looong time after TMP- Probert's stuff had improved greatly with age- I dont think he could have made the Warbird back when he worked on TMP.
I've never cared for Probert's shuttles though- the "bar of soap" shuttle he was so disapointed they never accurately built is.....ugly. Hideous in fact, with it's scaled-down galaxy nacelles.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I had thought that the bulldozer sketch was a joke, but it occures to me that a workbee with a 'dozer blade could be invaluable for shoving wreckage off the fantail, when they need to land more shuttles in a hurry, like after the evacuation of Siagon-XII or something.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I think the "bulldozer" was more a doodle as he experiemented with the idea of attachments that you'd need around a construction yard. I suspect he was starting with the conventional and then translating those functions into something functional.
As to Andy's stuff imrpving, I'm sure it did. On the other hand, again, let's not forget that films are collaborative processes and the design direction of most isn't solely the work of individuals. I'm sure Richard Taylor and then Doug Trumbull had a lot of say in which design directions Andy was encouraged to go in. "I like this direction, not that."
And, finally, what was actually said and by whom isn't clear. Andy and I had a discussion recently about an interview with Richard Taylor where Richard says things that in Andy's recollection was nothing of the sort. Where's reality? You'll need a Delorean at 88mph to find out...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...plus TMP was a looong time ago- I'd bet their own recollections are dim and that some of what's on Probert's site is him filling in blanks after digging up old sketches.
But that Marauder having crab claws and an extending neck is just awful. Awful I say!
He's a Legend in Trek, but no artist makes masterpieces all the time. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Maybe the bulldozer attachment allows the Workbee to use Bulldozer beams.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Not to forget, that he IS an Artist. He's making Art. Art doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to be provoke an impression. I can imagine the thought process at the time... like a bulldozer in space. So, what do you start with.. a bulldozer, and let the inspiration go where it will.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: That's not to say I think he could have designed a better Spacedock, Excelsior, Oberth, KBOP or any of the other ILM goodies from STIII.
Ok, BoP yes, but if I had to choose some designs that "looked like ass" as you so idiomatically put it, the Excelsior and Oberth would be somewhere near the head of the list. Furthermore, I really don't see anything special about the Spacedock aside from its monstrous size. It sure did make an impact on screen, though.
And, like, aren't we forgetting a little something here? As in, THE REFIT? True, Jefferies and Minor had layed out many of the modifications beforehand, but it was still Probert who polished it off.
-MMoM Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I swapped emails with Andy recently and asked him about a couple of the issues raised here. Here's what he told me:
"The Marauder's stretching neck...was a locked-in script requirement, to reveal their ship's sensitive areas as their way of surrendering. The writer/producers wanted it to look like a horseshoe crab...[T]he "claws" were a variation of the Klingon disrupter designs from TOS." (remember the metal plates on either side of the "barrel"?)
So there you go. As I said, a lot of this comes from the producer's dicates.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Heh - signed on with the Federation, used their immense construction abilities to make taxi cabs for Starfleet. Boy, ain't that a parallel... Oh, and they worked to improve the dice for roleplayers everywhere, too.
One wonders what happened to the travel pod concept in the TNG era... The pods in TMP and ENT served basically a single purpose of transporting people around in orbit or for visual inspections; they had no apparent manipulators for assembly or repair, no tractor beams, and in TMP et. al. they didn't even have seats for the pilot!
And for the love of God, will someone PLEASE fix the spelling error in the title of this thread? It's been driving me bananas...
Hideous.....but I'm not a fan of fighters in Trek so you mileage may vary (as they say).
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: And for the love of God, will someone PLEASE fix the spelling error in the title of this thread? It's been driving me bananas...
Ahhhh....the plan proceeds according to schedule....or is it skedule?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
So what happened to this film?
I like the idea of the TOS/TWOK cross-over uniforms.
Some names in there - Bill Conti - isn't he a big-time composer - did the orchestrations for the Academy Awards etc?
Anyone seen this film?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Hmmm...the K-Fighter doesn't have an apparent window for forward viewing. I'll have to ask Andy about that.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Apparently it can be used only for drive-by shootings Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Drive by Bat'Leth-ings?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What happened to what film?
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Why am i suddenly thinking of Gangsta pimped out bat'Leths "Junior, when we picked up your bat'leth, it was rust; Now, West Kronos Custom have pimped it to be bling with a capital B!, pumpin out Opera louder than Kovort class cruser, with a shine so great, if it doens't blind hotties with targeting scanners, nothing will! Word!"
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
THIS film.
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Did anyone else see this?
B.J.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
One of those impossible to find fan-films. Heard about it a couple years ago, but have never been able to hunt down a copy. Whether it's crap or not, I don't care. I want a copy for the sake of having one.
Good catch on that, AndrewR! I'd forgotten about that one.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Is that a Klingon fighter?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
No, I believe it's a ladies hair removal device.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Mabye it's under construction. Mabye it's not the most detailed drawing either, Jim. Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: So what happened to this film?
I like the idea of the TOS/TWOK cross-over uniforms.
Some names in there - Bill Conti - isn't he a big-time composer - did the orchestrations for the Academy Awards etc?
Anyone seen this film?
I asked Probert about it years ago - August 1998 to be precise. Specifically I was asking about the ship as I was interested in how it differed from the TOS and TMP designs. Here's Mr Probert's reply to my email... "Jim, In a message dated 8/8/98 4:43:54 AM, you wrote:
I read an article in a "Starlog" magazine, sometime in the mid 80's, about an unofficial 'Star Trek' film (I think it was called 'Yorktown II') that you were said to be providing some designs for.
Yep.
The article included a drawing of a Klingon scout-ship, and credited you with designing the "Yorktown", which was described as being a mixture of the Original Series and Movie Era type starship.
Yes, well, it would be more of an intermediate design.
I don't know if the movie was ever completed or screened , but I was wondering if you might still have some drawings or photographs of the "Yorktown", and if I might be able to obtain a copy of them?
Sorry, I can't lie to you, I do have them somewhere, but we just moved and I'd rather not dig for them through all the boxes, just now.
If that isn't possible, could you tell me if the "Yorktown" design is anything like the "Enterprise" model that was being built for 'Star Trek - Phase II'
No. A friend built that model from parts of plastic hobby kits.
(whatever happened to that model? Was it broken up, put into storage, or lost/stolen?).
I have no idea. I never actually saw the model, myself. The shots you saw were given to me when I worked on ST:TMP.
Any way, I'm glad you liked what you saw. There may be a model of that Klingon fighter out, one day; I'm talking to someone about it. Write me back, in a few months and maybe you'll have better luck with your request, okay?
Thanks, AndyP-"
Well, I wrote him back some time later but never heard from him again *sniff* Was true to his word about the model of the Klingon fighter though, even if it did take 7 years... Tried to find the film maker, Stan Woo, but lucked out on that search too. And I still don't know what the Yorktown looks like...
I think the rules came into play later
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
Jason, granted it is a rough drawing. Might even have been what caused Roddenberry to come up with the rule...? Took one look at it and said "Ick, no more of them".
I believe it was Roddenberry's (supposed) snub to the FJ designs that established the "rules".
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I find it hard to believe that Roddenberry would have to resort design "rules" to invalidate FJ's work. He could just have simply said, "That was a marketing thing, and those ships aren't 'real' in the Trek universe." No if's ands or rules.
Besides, in retrospect I think all the one and three nacelled ships look fugly, and I'd be just as glad to see them go.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Not knowing GR I can not argue, but, not knowing GR I can not agree either.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Madness! The Niagra is the epitome of balanced design!
Or not.
I dont generally care for the "frying pan" look of single nacelled ships, though there are some exceptions- Masao's Predator and ravenstar's Douglas class cruisers come to mind. Nothing canon(or even onscreen) though.
Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
Well this is hearsay, but the general take on the story is that GR had a falling out with FJ. After that, no 1 or 3 nacelled ships.
Of course there was the AGT Enterprise, and the Freedom. But Roddenberry was space-dust by then...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)