Someone over at TrekBBS found this, apparently on one of the TNG DVD sets.
Apparently, following the end of shooting the model for Star Trek Generations, ILM took the liberty of relabeling the model as NCC-1701-E, since they assumed the model would be used again for the next Enterprise. Apparently no one has bothered to put the registry back to where it belongs...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
OH MY GOD!! That's completely fucking WILD!!
After I saw "Generations" the first time, I decided on the same thing, that the next Galaxy model I built would be a "placeholder" Enterprise. I figured the next one wouldn't be a GalaxyGibraltar.
Nice to see that someone at ILM had the same thought as me.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Nifty, indeed.
Posted by The Non-Red 359 (Member # 37) on :
I should also point out that the DS9 model is in the background of the first picture...sitting upside-down.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
*a drop of tear comes to his eyes*
That's the true Enterprise.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
But isn't that model now serving as the Venture?
Posted by Red Ultra CaptainMike Pym (Member # 709) on :
PHO-TO-SHOP
Posted by Colourblind Harry (Member # 265) on :
Yeah. Looks a bit too sharp compared to the rest of the photo. But when you sharpen or brighten it in PSP, there are absolutely no signs of 'photoshopping'.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
well then someone wit the DVDs better start looking then??
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I've never been completely sure of this, but is this the original 6 foot model? I heard that ILM took it apart and resufaced it for Generations, but some places say it was just used for the saucer seperation bit, and others say it was used for the entire film.
And isn't it the 4 footer that got relabled to the Venture?
Isn't that second dash really small? From what I remember of the A and D, the dash between the "1701" and the letter was the same size as the dash between the "NCC" and "1701". It actually looks off centre here. Compare what escape pods the registry starts and ends on.
And finally, why on earth would ILM think that in the first place? The Enterprise-D wasn't destroyed for story reasons, like the original was. It was destroye precisely so that they could have a cooler ship in the next film.
Posted by Magenta Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
OK... I had heard this story, too... but these phots clearly look fake to me. The "E" in the first picture looks like it's crooked and up a little too far... which it isn't in the second photo. Secondly, as has been mentioned before, the registry looks way too sharp compared to the rest of the picture.
It could be real... but my vote is for No.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Thing is though, it does seem that the 'E' is at a slightly awkward angle, but it looks that way in both pictures. Or something.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
That's the 6 foot model and the picture is not a fake. It comes from the Season 2 box-set documentation "Starfleet Archives" with Penny Juday. No explanation for the "-E" given. She asks the viewer what is wrong with the picture, then she reveals the "-E" and says "Why is that so?"
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Isn't that second dash really small? From what I remember of the A and D, the dash between the "1701" and the letter was the same size as the dash between the "NCC" and "1701". It actually looks off centre here. Compare what escape pods the registry starts and ends on.
The second dash is correct as the Connie model labeled as 1701-A has a small dash just as the Galaxy model labeled 1701-D had a small dash. Even the E-C was labeled like that and I'd venture to say so was the E-B. However the real E-E was labeled with both dashes being the same width.
Also I don't think it really matters if the registry is off-center because I think each digit is applied separately and sometimes off-centering happens.
Posted by USSMillennium74754 (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I've never been completely sure of this, but is this the original 6 foot model? I heard that ILM took it apart and resufaced it for Generations, but some places say it was just used for the saucer seperation bit, and others say it was used for the entire film.
Yep. Still pisses me off that ILM did a beautiful job on renovations to the model just for it to get six seconds of screentime (the exterior shots of the Enterprise approaching Amargosa and Veridian III, plus the brief exterior shots during the Klingon battle). *Sigh...* That ship was incredible...
This whole story was also confirmed in that ILM book that came out a number of years ago (with the Death Star and the X-wings on the cover). I don't think that ILM actually thought that the Galaxy class would be used for the Enterprise-E, just that they thought it would be neat to do what they did with the original motion picture Enterprise when it became the Enterprise-A.
BTW, the "E" looks off-centered to me because the "D" that used to be there was much, much wider (look at some of the reference shots at EAS and you'll see what I mean).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Makes you think, though - what if the Galaxy-class ship had been re-used for the Enterprise-E? We all know that the only real reason they destroyed the E-D was to have a new ship and sets for the movies. But what if they'd had all that, and just had a slightly upgraded exterior appearance, and all-new interior sets? Most of us ave expressed general dissatisfaction with the E-E sets, especially the bridge. Would the movies have been any different if the E-E were a GCS?
Mark
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Aside from the technological convenience of having regenerative shields in First Contact, agility in Insurrection, and firepower in Nemesis... then no. A Galaxy Class with the sheilds, weapons, and manuverability of a Sovereign Class would do just fine.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, those are all arbitary factors anyway. A starship is exactly as powerful as TPTB want it to be for that story, so from that point of view, no, it wouldn't have been any different at all.
Have most people expressed dissatisfaction with the Enterprise-E? I wasn't aware of that.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
From the book Industrial Light & Magic: Into the Digital Age, page 60:
"With the [Generations] Enterprise presumably shipshape for future adventures, John Goodson made a sly addition to the model prior to crating it up to send back to Paramount...changing the ship's indentification marking to NCC-17071-E."
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i would have loved to have seen a galaxy class E-E. the Sovereign has always, to me, seemed like the riced out honda of Star Trek.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'd pick a Honda over a Rolls-Royce anyday.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: I'd pick a Honda over a Rolls-Royce anyday.
yes, but would the honda have a whaletail and "type r" stickers?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
From back in the days when I first got my hands on Photoshop...
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Prismatic EdipisReks: yes, but would the honda have a whaletail and "type r" stickers?
Nah, just neon lighting.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by USSMillennium74754:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I've never been completely sure of this, but is this the original 6 foot model? I heard that ILM took it apart and resufaced it for Generations, but some places say it was just used for the saucer seperation bit, and others say it was used for the entire film.
Yep. Still pisses me off that ILM did a beautiful job on renovations to the model just for it to get six seconds of screentime (the exterior shots of the Enterprise approaching Amargosa and Veridian III, plus the brief exterior shots during the Klingon battle). *Sigh...* That ship was incredible... .
I agree whole heartedly with this statement.
That was an awesome scene where the camera pans behind the Enterprise-D while the Klingon torps are firing. Inspirational. Probably the best 'effects' out of all the TNG movies so far. I'm sorry - Fleet of ships or not - the effects (ok except for the first view of the E-E) Were flat, ill-lit and terribly uninteresting. Insurrection MORESO. That ship was made so flat and beige. Ugg. And the on-set photography made the bridge look REALLY bad, I mean like a washed out piece of a Safari Suit. Really bad. TNG had a bright lit flat set - with not many shadows, but Ins was way beyond that it was fucking disgusting and really, really dreary. The Bridge in FC was Fantabulous. Very Moody. Very realistic. That is what it is the Bridge in Insurrection didn't look realistic, it looked like the rest of the bridge was a painted backdrop.
Andrew
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman:
quote:Originally posted by Prismatic EdipisReks: yes, but would the honda have a whaletail and "type r" stickers?
Nah, just neon lighting.
LOL! At that picture... and neon lighting!! Is THAT what those cars have with the big speaker systems and a blue/purple glow that seems to come from under the car. What is it's purpose? Even though it's hoon-ish it looks cool!
All us Trek fans can beat them at their own game and assemble the neon lighting to shine down either side of the car to look like nacelles and one on the front to look like a deflector dish glow!! Of course Phaser strips would be perfect during peak-hour! ;o)
Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
The tv advert in the uk for the season 2 box set had a close up of that very picture in it. Its definately real.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I tried to no avail to convince my stepbrother to paint his Trans Am black & then run a small red LED strip in the front.
And I, too, preferred the FC bridge design over Crapsurrection, if only for that giant-ass floor-to-ceiling viewscreen.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
u know...i dont even remember what the bridge in Insurrection looked like...not even the color scheme [if it was a different color scheme] but thats only explained by the fact that:
i've seen it only once, it was a small screen on the airplane,....judging by the comments..wasnt a very memorble set... wait i do remember that *cough*joystick
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: And I, too, preferred the FC bridge design over Crapsurrection, if only for that giant-ass floor-to-ceiling viewscreen.
There wasn't a viewscreen. It was a projected hologram.
Great wit on "Crapsurrection" too. I like the way you took the part "In", and replaced it with a word that describes how you feel about the movie. Genius!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's sass, right? You're sassing me.
Heh. Yeah, second nature. and I remember FC being a hologram. It didn't really look like it, though. It looked like the wall was actually fake. It was, as they say in the vernacular, "neet."
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
nar.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So I didn't just imagine that. In the pre-release hype for ST:FC I heard something about there being a holographic viewscreen, and I wondered how it would work; then I got to see the real thing when the movie came out. . . but I never heard any more about it. Plus they replaced it with a standard viewscreen in Shitesurrection, so that was that. But it was a really cool effect, and I always wondered why they'd make such a point of it then drop it completely.
Posted by Red BWC (Member # 818) on :
Well, Insuckrectum did a bad blow to the otherwise great TNG.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Do you even think before your fingers start moving?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Me too!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Wouldn't a holographic viewscreen be one in which the viewer can have a different perspective of a scene depending on where he stood? It's not just a Star Wars-style mid-air projection. Didn't they already have these capability on some episodes of TNG? I think I remember sometimes when you could see the sides of the faces of persons on the bridge and people on the viewscreen as they faced one another.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, yes, but as for the varying perspectives I'm not sure - put that down to artistic license and dramatic effect during each scene. Remember when the Edo God appeared in "Justice?" It was on the viewscreen, yet Geordi went to look at it through an actual window to see what his Visor could reveal about it. I think as you say, the point was an ordinary viewscreen was a flat image while the ST:FC holographic viewscreen was effectively 3D.
Posted by iam2xtreme (Member # 836) on :
It was the defiant that had the holocommunicator. And i read in some book (secrets of star trek insurrection, i think) that they dumped the viewscreen because they wanted it to be all the time, like a normal viewscreen. They made all the changes to the ship suggesting it had to be repaired extensively after FC. Things like changes to the bridge, the warp core changing colour etc....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: Well, yes, but as for the varying perspectives I'm not sure - put that down to artistic license and dramatic effect during each scene.... I think as you say, the point was an ordinary viewscreen was a flat image while the ST:FC holographic viewscreen was effectively 3D.
No, the varying perspectives on the TNG viewscreen were intentional. They make a point out of it in the tech manual and the Companion book. When you saw the viewscreen from the ready room door, the stars were steaking sideways, correctly with the perspective.
It was suppossed to be a 3d image, although I'm not sure whether than meant the image actually went backwards from the viewscreen, or whether it was flat and just looked different from different persepctives (through the medium of science and magic).
The whole Geordi thing was, I suspect, an implication that the viewscreen would have still filtered stuff out that only Geordi's visor could see. That way he could stand at the window and say "wow! It's a range of colours. Things I've never seen before! I can't descrie it."
Thank god he got a real job.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Making the TNG viewscreen 3D actually made the task of the VFX people easier.
Had the screen been portrayed as an ordinary 2D "television screen", it could only have been photographed from directly ahead, like they always did in TOS. Any attempt to shoot at an angle would have required lots of extra effort.
If you watch a television image of a person from the side, you see a flattened image of his face, not an undistorted image of his cheek. But in Trek, the image on the viewscreen is inserted using bluescreen techniques - and that means that one would have to first film this person from straight ahead, then artificially distort this image somehow, and then paste it on the bluescreen of the bridge set.
But if you pretend the viewscreen is 3D, you can shoot the person from the side, and directly paste this on the bluescreen of the bridge set, without needing to distort the image.
With the smaller viewscreens, bluescreens are not necessary - those can be actual monitors playing back an image of the person. So they can be made to look 2D without the need to distort the image artificially. But it was only in DS9 that Paramount could afford the special kind of monitors that can be synched to the camera refresh rate. And the main viewers have always been too big to be real (although one wonders why these couldn't be done as minatures, like the Cardassian command center screen in DS9 "Defiant"?).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Possibly because then they wouldn't have been able to have people stand in front of it? Not that they did it much anyway. I wonder if they were originally planning to have Data and whoever always in the shots of the viewscreen (like Sulu and whoever were often in shots of the TOS viewscreen).
I always wondered about DS9. I knew there had to be a reason there was suddenly a lot more animation on screens everywhere, and I suspected something like that. The downside was though that displays now couldn't be truelly flat, as they had to hide the back of the monitor somewhere. Regarding "affording" it though, was it that Paramount didn't have the money in TNGs time, or where they a LOT more expensive?
And on the other subject, making it 3d would have been easier in that sense, but it would also having given them a bit less freedom in filming, as the blue screen stuff (which would presumably be second unit) would have to match the regular shoot. I don't think they ever got the angles wrong and were forced to fudge it though.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I don't think cost is the issue, but rather what technology is available at the time. Consider what computers were like in 1987; nowadays, they don't balk at putting loads of Silicon Graphics screens on the NX-01 bridge set.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Cost was actually a fairly serious issue throughout much of TNG's run, AFAIK. The franchise had a much tighter budget than you might expect.
[ August 02, 2002, 07:56: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
if TNG had a large budget, then "shades of grey" would never have happened.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Surely the writers strike had something to do with that.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Shades of Grey was done because they had about $5 left. generally, clip shows are very cheap and are generally only made when there isn't any money left. tv producers don't like making them anymore than viewers like watching them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes they do. They love them.
I didn't mean to suggest that money had nothing to do with it. Just that season 2 was terribly short on scripts. They had to come up with bottle shows to preserve cash all the time. But I think a clip show was spawned only by the unholy alliance of circumstances.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
But wasn't the writer's strike taking place throughout most of the second season anyway? I seem to recall that it was several months long, at least.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, yes? I'm not sure I see how my contention could work, otherwise.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)