posted
From this interview w/John Eaves, some interesting tidbits about his work in the art department/production design end of things is going. Judging by his comments about Bakula, the interview sounds like it might be two weeks old.
The Ent negative-A has something of an Akira-esque look to it, and is smaller than a Constitution, but they haven't yet nailed down an exact length figure as of the time of the interview. (Please oh please not another Defiantgate)
Eaves pitched the idea of using the TMP ship that everyone's been clamouring about here. (Mercifully) said idea was quickly disposed of.
Everyone's apparently quite pleased with the interior look that got developed, and sets got designed in a relatively straightforward manner. Exterior stuff was a little more convoluted.
Conflicting word on whether the show'll have transporters or not... Eaves kinda alludes to their not being transporters, which the alleged review of the pilot script at AICN and the DoP said were present. Perhaps transporters might be so iffy that shuttlecraft are the dominant means of transport still?
As noted in another thread, Eaves description of the dates seems to lean the show closer to the mid 22nd century rather than "the hundred years from now" comments we've been hearing from Noonan.
[ June 04, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
Mr. Eaves says that they have completed the interiors first and are designing the exterior of this new Enterprise. Is this the first time that the design process has started with the interiors for a primary ship for a series in Star Trek?
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or we could call the TOS ship the Ent-AA and the new one the Ent-AAA. 'Course, then we might have to call Picard's most recent ship the Ent-DD. Everyone remember the USS Pamela Anderson? *L*
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I suspect that sets and exterior visuals are usually designed concurrently. There are time pressures, after all. (This is just a suspicion, of course.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Interiors, would, in most cases at least, come before exteriors, I think. The sets need to be finished before shooting, which for most big pilots (like Enterprise) could take place up to 6 months before airing. The exterior doesn't need to be finalized until VFX work starts, which I imagine won't be for another month or so. The Ent-E, for instance, got an interior shortly before an exterior, as evidenced by the slightly inaccurate MSD in First Contact and the whole 24 decks/26 decks mess. Likewise, some of the video monitors on Voyager showed a rotating image of the ship that was a little different to the final version (ie nacelle positions).
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I prefer Ent -A because of it's demeaning title.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Speaking on the interiors versus the exteriors, I have the Enterprise-D blueprints. In the interview booklet that came with it, Andrew Probert made a remark that he was supervising the construction of the bridge and other sets when David Gerrold came into his office and saw a concept drawing of what the Enterprise-D might look like. Gene Roddenberry approved the design direction after seeing it.
Evidently, in The Next Generation, the interior set construction was already started before there was even a completed final design for the starship herself.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
In what is certainly going to make TrekWeb look like downright idiots, they're now promoting fan art now confirmed as from the TrekBBS.com art forum as apparently-leaked design sketches. *giggle*
posted
I don't know if I should create a new thread for this or what, but a few comments on the S.S. Enterprise:
Why did whoever drew up those schematics think that the people would inhabit that cutesy little pod thing extended away from the "engine" rings?
If I were designing a starship that looked like that, I'd have it set up a wee bit differently. I'd put the crew and cargo areas in the rings and the main reactor/power generation system in the pod. Anyway, a couple of reasons, and I know there are problems with some of my logic, but bear with me here.
One, and rather obvious, is that in case there was an accident and the reactor was going to explode, it's far away from the crew, and could be ejected easily.
Two, although in reality I think more than one support is necessary to properly distribute the mass and motion, I always thought those rings spun, creating gravity of sorts for the ship's inhabitants. It might be more power economical than maintaining a grav field, if that ship is as behind the times as I think.
But what about that pod in the center of the rings you say? I think it's a Bussard ramscoop. It collects interstellar gases with an intense electromagnetic field and shoots them back to the main reactor (possibly via linear particle acceleration through that connecting tube, but I think that would take too much energy).
If there were a solar flare or a wave of intense radiation, the crew might be able to use the magnetic field as a barrier or a shield.
Anyway, my thoughts. Now back to your regularly scheduled posting.
-------------------- "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
