Star Trek XI - Ending Recreation - TOS 1701 Version

[feenix219]

This argument is stupid. Original timeline, ship built in space. New timeline, preparing for War, Romulan infiltration, access to future technology, *everything* is different, the tech of the ship, where it was built, everything changes. You might not LIKE the new movie, but to argue canon before and after a major *timeline* rewrite with huge butterfly-effects, just makes no sense.

[JediBillman]

Good animation! The ship looks great.

[JMChladek]

Not enough lens flares. ;) Looks nice though.

[finalfrontier1701]

...I think your bussards are spinning the wrong way.

[trekker123eski]

shes still a nice beautiful ship

[niels332]

why is everyone writing a large comment 0_o?

[DocWolph]

Sorry that sequence looks better with the JJA Enterprise. It's a "passing of the torch" scene. It would be like trying to rewrite the "Signoff" in ST:VI with the Enterprise flying back at us instead of away. It ruins a very evocative and positively emotive scene.

[mcfuson37]

This is the way the enterprise should have looked.

[CryoStatus]

Honestly, I liked the film, of course, it doesnt really show THAT much the ideals of starfleet and strange trek-tastic stuff. Yet, its a movie, and its supposed to be entertaining and attractive to other people. Maybe this way we could get some more people into ST universe

[thecopykidofthestarz]

This is the one true long "Shipshape" of the Enterprise. not the one from

Lens Flare the Motion Picture.

[PetrosofSparta]

There's a huge amount of Star Trek Nazi's around, it's really quite depressing. "Star Trek is for the Trekkies and no-one else can like it, we can't make it big budget or look visually striking Nargfh!!" Listen kids, I've been a trekkie longer than 90% of you, I was there on the premier of TNG, I was there for the premier of DS9, I was there for the premiere of... VOY, and ENT even... ugh... Voyager.... I have an MFA in Screenwriting, ST09 was an entertaining fun visually striking introduction

[Actionguy1]

@PetrosofSparta I was there from the very BEGINNING! That's right, way back in 1966. And I'll tell you right now that nothing JJ Abrams and his hacks come up with will ever be close to what's come before it. NOT even Voyager! ST09...ugh... was neither entertaining, fun, nor visally striking. It was dumbed down for the general populace and the cinematography was horrible. I could barely sit through that mess!

Congratulations JJ! You turned an iconic television classic into "Enterprise: 90210"!

[ZeroEnero]

@Actionguy1 There's a reason Trek got a reboot: It was dying from staleness. If it'd been the same as the last of Trek has been, there'd never be new official Trek stuff again.

[Actionguy1]

@ZeroEnero That's just the point. There was no reason for a "reboot". There was nothing wrong with Trek in the first place!

"Official Trek stuff"?

This film NEVER generated any "official Trek stuff"! Not even "reasonanable facsimiles".

Did you know that Playmates Toys cancelled the line of new "official Trek stuff" because it was an abysmal failure?

Very much like this horrible excuse for a Star Trek film.

[Actionguy1]

@ZeroEnero Got NEWS for you buddy! JJ Abrams' "Star Shit" is not even canon! Never will be "Official Star Trek"! All the merchandise associated to this peice of trash film has been cancelled! What does that tell you?

[Actionguy1]

Now THAT is the way it should have been done! (Gives finger to JJ Abrams!)

[SuperSaiyanAl]

Yeah, it sure does suck that Star Trek isn't canceled and stagnant anymore.

[Actionguy1]

@SuperSaiyanAl o set the record straight, the series was never canceled or stagnant. There were a hell of a lot more wonderful stories that could have been told in the "prime universe". What sucks is that JJ Abrams turned a beloved franchise into "Enterprise: 90210". He dumbed it down to a low point. Sure, it made money, but he made it that way to appeal to the masses of idiots who would eat up a mindless action film.

That's NOT what Star Trek is about.

JJ Abrams' Star Trek is horseshit!

[SuperSaiyanAl]

The series was canceled and stagnant. It started with Voyager and just nosedived from there right into Enterprise. Piddling ratings and mediocre storytelling, both of which contributed to the decline and ultimate downfall of Star Trek.

If I could turn back time to 1993 and the glory days of TNG, DS9, I would. But those days are long gone. And Trek is never going to get anywhere near them again unless they make some concessions. You want Star Trek to regain its glory, you gotta tolerate Abrams.

[Actionguy1]

@SuperSaiyanAl I will agree with you about TNG and DS9, but as far as tolerating JJ Abrams? Never happen. Abrams regaining Star Trek's glory? Never happen. You stated that Enterprise killed Star Trek. Trek was meant to move forward, not revisit the past. That's where Abrams screwed up. I give Abrams' crew one, maybe two more films, before Paramount realizes this and say's, "No more"!

Then we'll get our old time line back!

Abrams is an "adequate" TV producer, but NOT a feature film director.

[SuperSaiyanAl]

Then consider it a stepping-stone to getting Star Trek back. I mean, that's what the new movie was about, right? Revitalizing interest by making a film to appeal across the spectrum, rather than catering exclusively to Trek fans? Well, interest is generated, so now they can return to the true spirit of Trek, which I guarantee they'll do in the near future.

Consider--before this movie, the most successful Trek film was Star Trek IV, the one meant to appeal to casual moviegoers.

[Peanutman1954]

Well done.  Very impressive.

[Nelsanski33]

I would like to see a company go through and redo all the scenes from Star Trek XI with the ORIGINAL Enterprise, the one I've always remembered.

[richgarn79]

nice to see the old girl in action one more time

[MasterJediKyleKatarn]

For the love of Christ illuminate the warp grills and rear domes in a soft white glow.

[neocool12]

isn't she brilliant ! ..awesome, nicely done :)

[spacecowboy5000]

Woouuaouw! Beautiful model - the details made me think it was a physical model. Excellent job, dude.

[CMDRKillsalot]

Any chance you could recreate the ending using the TMP Enterprise and the Phase II Enterprise aswell?

You can get models for both at the Bridge Commander mods site on FileFront.

[vektork]

0:22 your turn signal is stuck on

[troy2062]

@vektork

Lol. I just noticed that now! xD

[haljohn2814]

@vektork lol

[dmaleod66]

@vektork what do you expect, they have an asian driving.

[Actionguy1]

Beautiful. Simply beautiful!

[rarcher23]

see now why the heck couldnt abrams have used the blasted TOS enterprise? i still have to hear any decent excuse

[Actionguy1]

rarcher23: I must agree with you. Abrams is NOT a good director. He needs to stick to the small screen and leave feature films to the guys who actually have talent!

[luigi19987]

@rarcher23 have you heard the one about the fact that it is a new universe with a new time line it would have been silly to just remake the prime universe timeline this timeline started after the events of nemesis it is explained in star trek countdown

[Actionguy1]

@luigi19987 Have you heard the one about the fact5 that this movie SUCKED? I'm almost certain you have. The comi9c book series Star Trek:Countdown is NOT considered canon. Nothing written in any Star Trek comic has ever been considered canon.

Of course I, as well as a great many others, do not consider JJ Abrams' ridiculous shitfest called "Star Trek" canon.

JJ ABrams' Star Trek SUCKED Ferengi balls!

[Qoolmyst]

I wonder how this would look being done with Archers or Picards ships.

[dondonp12004]

I, too, ask troy2062 to do the two versions of the Star Trek XI closing: one with the Enterprise-D and the other with the Enterprise-E.

[paulbrk]

Why you do not use Lightwave?

[troy2062]

This particular mesh was only available in 3DS Max format.

[SawdustProductions]

Now THAT is how the movie SHOULD have looked!!!

[Lopezs777]

I love it how you made the impulse engines go offline right before the jump. Extremely high level of accuracy there too. Roddenberry would have been proud indeed.

[ewtng]

Gene Roddenberry would commend you.

Nice work.

[Swatyo]

the most realistic ship was the constitution refit from star trek 1-6

[PopeyeCove]

Cool. Now could you redo that same shot with a '68 Shelby Mustang?!

[DarthNecros390]

Very cool, a better ending!

[GodzillaBoy3]

your probably going to do it with all enterprises now arent you?

[troy2062]

Lol, I will possibly do the versions requested at some point in the future. In the mean time, I am working on recreations of the TMP Drydock sequence, Stealing the Enterprise sequence, and the ST:XI Fleet Warp scene.

With the 720p release of ST:XI, I will probably also do an update of my original XI ending recreation using more accurate meshes, high quality audio, and accurate animation.

[Lopezs777]

Don't forget to make the deflector dish open up on the JJprise and to shut off the engines right before the jump. Just these two pointouts =D

[cdname47]

Try it with the TNG warp next time :-)

[greenpenguino]

Could you do it with the TMP enterprise?

[all13Doctors]

*sigh* If only....

[fpsBeaTt]

The original is just such a pure and attractive ship. The new design looks like the nacelles have muscles. Why they made them so chunky, I'll never know.

[hoppers001]

I know the new ship looks like its on steroids.

[PetrosofSparta]

The old school ship was great for the 60s though. However it just doesn't look real enough these days. Especially after 18 years of TV Trek. The new one is the same design really, just modernised, I don't know why people are being so harsh on it.

[fpsBeaTt]

That's absurd, the original looked more realistic, especially with the camera shots of it cruising in space. For one, it would actually be at the level of clarity displayed in the original series (look @ any shuttle shot, and it has the same ambience, not absolute artificial clarity), and in design the original was just as if not more realistic. For one, it was built in orbit (the new film showed it being constructed on ground, which is asinine), and doesn't have ridiculously shaped nacelles.

[MrHoppers002]

amen. The original is not oddly shaped that's one.

[OhGawDuhhh]

The new film took place in an alternate reality so calm down. If you were to build a ship using artificial gravity, it wouldn't make sense to build the ship in precisely the right gravitational condition. As long as the Enterprise doesn't warp in earth's atmosphere, it's all good.

[ciscokitty8]

@OhGawDuhhh i wonder what would happen if you went to warp in an atmosphere...lol

[rkmugen]

@fpsBeaTt well... i actually think those 'ridiculously shaped nacelles' give the JJ Enterprise the beauty of an all-American classic car (short of the Edsel)...... but then again, I'm one of the very few people who actually liked the look of the Edsel. (I wasn't even born then!) (sorry for digging up an old comment post).

[jtkirkfan2002]

@fpsBeaTt There is a video floating around here that someone made of the orginal ship just with more detail and it looks great. Matt Jefferies's design was timeless, way ahead of its time for the '60's. There is no reason why a more detailed version could not have been used.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt There is nothing canon that says the Enterprise was built in orbit. However, it is now canon that the Enterprise was constructed in Earth's gravity well. Now, you're free to invent your own little private Star Trek canon, but don't expect everyone else to subscribe.

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire it was stated in TOS and in The Making of Star Trek page 171, written by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry stating "The unit components were built at the StarFleet division of what is still called the San Francisco navy yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet's surface." Know what you're talking about before you attempt to condescend to someone more knowledgeable than yourself.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt "The Making of Star Trek" is not canon. Idiot.

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire As I said, it was also stated in TOS; furthermore, any reasonable individual would accept the reasonable axiom that anything Gene Roddenberry wrote to compliment the series' backstory (reference material) has far more validity than the intellectually inept fools that also wrote the script for Transformers. Also, Viacom considers Trek reference material such as tech manuals canon.

btw, don't bother trying to insult me; ad hominem attacks from morons don't bother me in the slightest.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt "As I said, it was also stated in TOS" If this were true, then it would be canon. But it's not. Just saying so doesn't 'make it so.' Go ahead. Prove you didn't just pull that out of your ass by showing everyone where in TOS they say the Enterprise was constructed in orbit. You can't just make up shit and determine what you want it to be canon.

Also, Gene Rottenburied is not the 'end all' for determining what is canon. Star Trek was successful in spite of him, not because of him.

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire sure, the guy that created the series, who was responsible for every enlightened principal displayed in the show, and is remembered for the great works he did had nothing to do with the success of Star Trek. I guess that's why Star Trek deteriorated after he died (starting with Star Trek Generations). Canon: Star Trek - The Counter-Clock Incident. Furthermore, all reference material (including that written by Gene Roddenberry) is considered by Viacom to be canon. Get an education.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt "The Counter-Clock Incident" is not TOS. Try again. Also, a citation will be needed for your claim that "all reference material" (my god) is considered by Viacom to be canon. It's nonsensical. As for Gene, many would argue that TNG got better after he died. I would. Gene was poison. Many disliked him. Thankfully for TOS, NBC tweaked Gene's "The Cage" vision of a future. You remember that enlightened story, where a disfigured person should be shamed into isolation for appearance alone.

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire nice focus on the minutia; TOS cartoon then (which is considered cannon). All reference material written by the staff (i.e. technical advisors and execs) are considered cannon; it's easy enough to check out the wikipedia page (which gives the reference and link to him saying it). TNG did not get better after he died, since he died at the beginning of season 7. Furthermore, you have completely skewed the plot of "The Cage"; Vina wasn't 'forced' and was urged by Pike to come with her.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt I'll repeat: "a citation will be needed for your claim that "all reference material" (my god) is considered by Viacom to be canon. It's nonsensical."

Cartoons and comic books are not canon, or at least not as canon as an actual motion picture.

If you want to know what I really think, I think it was ridiculous to have the Enterprise constructed on the ground, and in a 3-year piecemeal manner that made no sense. However, it is now canon, and I can't just "pretend" it didn't happen.

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire I gave a reference for you, but apparently it's beyond your ability to click a link on a wikipedia article. You also clearly don't know what canon is, and are skewing it to suit your own stringent definition. The Animated series is considered canon, and whether you like it or not the latest movie violates more previously established canon than any other instance of Trek (like, I don't know, what the Enterprise actually looked like, Vulcan being destroyed etc).

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt Since Star Trek is make-believe anyway, the discussion of canon is academic. I've always taken just the series' and motion pictures. At one time this was all that was considered canon. If I had my way, TNG would not be canon, along with the later series.' But TNG, unfortunately, is canon.

The one good thing about this last movie is that it erases TNG, along with the rest of the later Trek dogma (from that universe, anyway. Trek canon has shown examples from many "parallel" universes.)

[fpsBeaTt]

@deepspire I understand your feelings about series after TNG (I personally like DS9, bar the seventh season as it maintains a high level of quality in respect to plot and continuity up till then), but I can't really understand your feelings towards TNG. It is by far the best series of Trek, paralleled only by TOS (I like both equally, as they both remained true to what Star Trek is about). Right up till and especially including 'All Good Things', among the likes of 'City on the Edge of Forever'.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt I really do think we agree on most everything. My original feelings about TNG sound like your feelings about the later series. But I do recognize TNG, and the others as canon. TNG had some outstanding episodes. So did DS9, VOY, and ENT. My question of canon was simply because there's already so many contradictions within canon as you undoubtedly know, that adding "all reference material" into the fold as well would make Trek canon as nonsensical and self-contradictory as the bible.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt But I would like to add that if I could pick and choose canon, I would toss STV, and all TNG movies. Yes, I enjoyed First Contact, even when they gave the Borg a queen, but the one thing I can't get past is Riker's speech about how the Moon looks so different in the 24th century with all the cities and water, yet in every other ST episode and movie where the Moon is shown, it's depicted as looking exactly like it does now. There's so many examples of broken canon in ST.

[deepspire]

@fpsBeaTt Voyager was terrible at keeping canon. Can't go warp 10 without turning into an amphibian? Ugh. How many times did ST exceed warp 10? I remember even in TOS they got to warp 13.9 in one episode. But VOY had some interesting shows as well. The Doctor was a great character. And speaking of VOY, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Utopia shipyard at Mars, where Starfleet was shown building hundreds of ships in space. (I know, wrong century...)

[troy2062]

@deepspire

The Warp 10 episode was certainly somewhat of an embarrassment to the series. If memory serves, an older Warp scale was used during the era of TOS, which would explain the apparent Warp 13.9 inconsistency.

[deepspire]

@troy2062 Is the old warp scale canon, or is it just mentioned in fan material or somewhere else? Often people will try to explain-away inconsistencies to make it fit canon, which has become necessary at times just to help it make better sense. A different warp scale sounds a bit contrived. I mean, they only went to 13.9 one time in TOS. All the other warp speeds were typical and consistent with all later Trek. But in TOS there was no real established canon yet. They invented as the went along.

[troy2062]

@deepspire

It was explained in both the TNG Technical Manuals and Star Trek Encyclopedia. I am uncertain as to whether you would consider these canon, however they were written by the scientific advisors of the series'.

[deepspire]

@troy2062 Yeah, those technical manuals are very interesting, but not officially canon. But who really cares? I think moreso now than ever, people are deciding their own canon, especially considering all the gaps and contradictions.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire Except in regard to some of TOS. Gene Roddenberry was very clear there, also, the original Constitution Class, despite SFX failure in the Original Series, is the only ship that is well detailed in canon with any clarity. Even the Wikipedia page on it has stabilized.

[deepspire]

@Idazmi7 Just because Rottenburied may have (or may not have) said something does not make it canon. In fact, there is very little about the original Enterprise background that is canon, at least until the latest movie.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire So.. what was the point of you flaming me? You obviously don't even like the EXISTENCE of anything except the new movie, judging by your response.

[deepspire]

@Idazmi7 No, I simply discount anything non-canon, when compared to anything canon.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire Ahem... I said detailed IN CANON. I don't remember TOS episodes being inconsistent about the ship's abilities. Search: Constitution_class_starship at Wikipedia for cited info.

Then try it at Memory Alpha for what you "Canoneers" have done. (Memory Alpha says the Constitution Class has *eighteen* phaser emmiters!) And the "Rottenburied" wisecrack was certanly funny, if you are sick.

[deepspire]

@Idazmi7 Whatever. As long as it's canon, meaning on-screen or aired. And Rottenburied was an accurate description even when the fool was alive. It's even more accurate now.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire All of the information I presented was aired. Also, Roddenberry CREATED Star Trek, so I would be careful who I'm calling "foolish". All inconsistencies start with NextGen, and that other director: Rick Berman. J.J. Abrams just followed the usual trend: Reduce Trek for less intelligent audiences. Illogical in the extreme. And you are still a "Canoneer", a fool who replaces the canon with what makes you feel good. You seem to ignore other "aired" events because they ruin your fantasy.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire That "fool" created Star Trek classic. Rick Berman, J.J. Abrams, and other directors just reduce the intelligence of Star Trek to please audience. Fans like you ignore any canon information you don't like, aired or not. You still did not need to attack my first comment: read it again, I was just presenting info. Lighten up, or get logical, but don't do that again. You are part of the reason Star Trek has a bad name.

[deepspire]

@Idazmi7 Canon is only what appeared on TV or on screen. Nothing else. Furthermore, Star Trek was successful in spite of Rottenburied, not because of him.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire Everything I mentioned was onscreen, in episodes written by Roddenberry. Without him, Trek would not have even existed to BE 'successful'.

[deepspire]

@Idazmi7 He may have started Trek, but Gene Coon made TOS great.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire So why does Roddenberry piss you off so?

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire It was the bible to the TV series, reprinted. Making it canon. Idiot.

[Idazmi7]

@deepspire It was the bible to the TV series, reprinted. Making it canon. Idiot.

[ZeroEnero]

@fpsBeaTt It also looks like a plastic toy nowadays. Not saying it was bad, just that they didn't have the budget for better.

[OhGawDuhhh]

I think it's great interpretation of the Enterprise. It's my favorite version yet.

[Actionguy1]

@PetrosofSparta Because the JJ-prise is fucking ugly and has NO place in the franchise! Neither does this awful movie!

[RobertMfromLI]

@PetrosofSparta I disagree on both. I think the old girl holds up fine - when rendered correctly, as in our episodes. That aside, go to Vektor Visual's website (that name, no spaces, no apostrophe s, dot com) and check out his re-imagined TOS Enterprise. PERFECTLY fitting for the big screen, with minor modifications.

[JediBillman]

@PetrosofSparta You realize the ship is fictional, right?

[ciscokitty8]

@fpsBeaTt they made the new design a cross between the original constitution class and the refit constitution class, that's why it looks so chunky :p

[OhGawDuhhh]

If you went warp in the earth's atmosphere, wouldn't it ignite the atmosphere?

[troy2062]

No. You may be confusing Warp Drive with the speed of light. If an object travels at the speed of light within a planet's atmosphere, said atmosphere would ignite.

Warp Drive moves a subspace bubble containing the ship through space, meaning there would be no physical interaction between the ship itself and the atmosphere.

[ciscokitty8]

@troy2062 well, the ship goes near the speed of light before actually entering warp (logically speaking), so wouldn't the friction ignite the ship as well as the atmosphere around it?

[troy2062]

From the point where a the subspace field is generated, unless disrupted, the ship is immediately encompassed by a pocket of subspace. A ship can transition from zero velocity to Warp velocity without the need to physically move.

As an example, in The Voyage Home, Mr. Scott piloted a Klingon Bird of Prey out of Earth's upper atmosphere at maximum Warp.

[troy2062]

In response to the question of the ship itself being ignited, the deflector dish exists to prevent this (and to deflect other microscopic particles in space while at Warp).

[ciscokitty8]

ok, i drop my arguement :p

[troy2062]

Lol xD

[fpsBeaTt]

No, neither the refit or original are chunky in the nacelles; it's an edselprise.

[hoppers001]

This is the ending they should've used. :)

[KyKiskeTheAngel]

I would love to see tht

[EliteRanger]

I dare you to do a better version of this by doing another pass (fixing the shading and tracking issues) as well as a more detailed model (the hydrogen scoops look off).

Otherwise, this is just what a TOS Purist like myself has wanted to see!

[NRessler08]

that was sweet!!

[Darthprell]

thats very cool

[DoomTay]

I dare you to make a credits sequence that mimics the original series opening credits wit hthe STXI Enterprise and cast

[troy2062]

Dare accepted. xD

Might take some time though, as I am currently working on the requested TNG/Refit versions of this video, as well as the TMP Drydock recreation and some After Effects tutorials.

[troy2062]

I am working on your request now. Would you like me to use the new version of the soundtrack, or the original?

[DoomTay]

Up to you

[DoomTay]

On secodnhtought, let's go with the orignal

[troy2062]

Original it is then. Should be uploading by the end of the day (or whenever the network completes rendering).

[dondonp12004]

Awesome! Can you do more versions of the ending, including the one with the refited Enterprise from the first "Star Trek" motion picture, the one with the Enterprise-A from the final three TOS-era motion picture, the one with the Enterprise-D from "The Next Generation" and the one with the Enterprise-E from the final three TNG-era motion pictures? Thanks.

[troy2062]

Lol, the 1701 Refits are no problem, but would you like me to keep the same camera animation, or come up with something a little different for the D and E revisions?

[dondonp12004]

Let's stick to the same animation as the "Star Trek XI" ending itself.

[troy2062]

Sure, will do.

Should have the Refit version posted by tomorrow evening ;).

[foglamped]

OMG OMG the awesome ship is back!

[Airportchris2]

What was with the shadows?

Nice animation, btw.

[troy2062]

Thx.

The shadows problems are due to animated flashing lights on the mesh. The only way to get rid of the artifacts was via supersampling, but render times would have been very high.

[Airportchris2]

Give the lights a linear falloff, that's how I limit the affect of the strobes on my modded meshes.

[troy2062]

I'll try that :)

[TitanicWHV]

Wow, thank you, i like these 1701 more than JJ´s Enterprise

[Airportchris2]

I have actually grown to like the JJ Enterprise.

[Airportchris2]

After all Star Trek XI was a alternate universe, so it seems only natural in Trek to have a alternate looking ship.