www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:Quite true.
Personaly, I'd have been happy if they'd have sacraficed one of the thousand or so E-E beauty shots to add another minute or so to the actual battle.

I live for the day, ten or twenty years from now most likely, when CGI is so cheap that they decide to do remastered versions of the movies much as they are doing for TOS. Imagine First Contact done with an extra two or three minutes in the battle scenes.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if the average double episode of Trek had as much if not more special effects in it than the average Trek movie.

Indeed. You've also got the problem (and cost) of the higher-quality models required for movie-quality filming. The 6' E-D model had to be heavilly upgraded for Generations, partially because it hadn't been used for years, partially because it had been built for TV-quality filming, not movie-quality,

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Wouldn't surprise me if the average double episode of Trek had as much if not more special effects in it than the average Trek movie.

Indeed. You've also got the problem (and cost) of the higher-quality models required for movie-quality filming. The 6' E-D model had to be heavilly upgraded for Generations, partially because it hadn't been used for years, partially because it had been built for TV-quality filming, not movie-quality,

I read once that the typical TV-quality filming model for a ship-of-the-week runs the show $50,000. And this was in ten-years-ago-money!

I read somewhere a while ago that the reason they killed off the E-D was because it was designed to look good on a TV, rather than the big screen (whether it achieved this is up to debate, though). The E-E was specificaly designed to look good on the big screen.

I thought the E-D looked pretty great in Generations, personally.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I thought the E-D looked pretty great in Generations, personally.

It looked about as good as a GCS can look - the design is too unbalanced (the saucer section is too big relative to the engineering hull, and the nacelles are too small) to look great.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I thought the E-D looked pretty great in Generations, personally.

So do I, right about when it was plummeting to it's doom.

Seriously though, they did a good job for the film with what was a fairly ugly design.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Seafort.

I do agree about the GCS, though. I was going to say good, but I guess just seeing it on the big screen for the first time colored my perception.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Seafort.

And if the beholder thinks the GCS is beauty then he, she, or it needs an eye test.

Regarding Generations though, I agree with Kendall - they made the best of a bad job.

Agreed. It could have been a lot worse.

Come on guys the GCS is not thaaaat ugly. It's not my favourite ship but it's ok... and... from some angles... it even looks a little beautiful

It looks a damn sight better than the Frakensteins, but it's far from a pretty design. It's too unbalanced.

Although, to be fair, being unbalanced like it is doesn't have an actual effect on a space (only) vehicle. It jsut makes it look ugly to our eyes, which are used to gravity-limited design.

Yeah, I think we're just talking about aesthetics, though.

Comparing it with the Frankenstein fleet is a little unfair. The ships from that fleet are not just ugly... they are abominations... I wonder if we can somehow make them non-canon.