View Single Post
Old February 22 2013, 06:45 PM   #174
Johnny's Avatar
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Re: Star Trek: Axanar

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
What I got from the Ent.-D was a small-ship impression (which didn't match the supposed size of the thing). For a long time, I couldn't figure out why. Then it slowly became a bit clearer. After the Connie-class, of course, came the Excelsior. With that, you had tiny windows and a smaller "head-to-body-size" ratio in terms of comparison of primary to secondary hull. It looked like a more "grown-up" starship.
The transitions between the Excelsior and Galaxy I thought was like going from a submarine to a luxury liner, an understandable change over that period of time. Larger windows, bigger ships. No point floating above a planet if you can't see out the windows.

I think showing scale was the (cost?) limit of eighties special effects, it's always comparative and rarely looks that way above a planet.

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
If one looks at any living thing, creatures with large heads compared to the bodies are immature versions of the adult. Large windows can also give the same overall impression as "large eyes"--and the Galaxy class had huge windows. If one looks at the windows of vessels such as the Excelsior or D'Deridex, their pinhole size makes the whole ship, by contrast, look immense. By contrast, the Galaxy seemed small by design due to those visual cues.
If you think about the human body, all of the vital organs are in the torso and head (ie: the saucer) which is a pretty big place, and you can lose your legs (secondary) and still operate and therefore save your life if you lost an appendage.
Assuming that we treat the star ship in the same way, the design makes sense. Power below/behind, safety above/infront.
Since when had design solely depended on nature? Just look at the rocket! XD

Vieux Normand wrote: View Post
I did rather prefer the three-nacelle Ent.-D that briefly appeared in All Good Things. Its additions, being primarily to the secondary hull, made for a more balanced (less "head-heavy") design. It did present a problem in terms of the neck-mounted impulse engine, however, and this brings up a question I have about those.
I liked seeing that version, purely for change and seeing the possibilities of what could be, but got the feeling that in a firefight squeezing through a tight gap would be like trying to force a brick through a letter box! No elegance or grace.
I like the way the two-nacelle version as the the side profile of the saucer (which I always compare the a plane wing) isn't interrupted by another nacelle.
Johnny is offline