RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,814
Posts: 5,326,386
Members: 24,550
Currently online: 715
Newest member: junkdata

TrekToday headlines

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 22 2008, 05:38 PM   #121
Sheridan
Lieutenant
 
Sheridan's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Sheridan
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Ok, this might be a little off topic but what was the reason when designing the original Enterprise to have the saucer, secondary haul and warp drives separate from each other? I'm not suggesting that we change the design but wouldn't a design like the Romulan ship that we saw in TOS be more practical? This is one of the things I've never heard explained in the design process of the Enterprise.
Sheridan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 05:40 PM   #122
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Eric Cheung wrote: View Post
The goal that Roddenberry had when he commissioned the design for the Enterprise, and the this was the same goal when they designed Deep Space Nine, was that someone have the TV on in the background and from the corner of your eye you'd instantly know that you were watching Star Trek.
Which would be totally and completely unaffected by whether the design seen on 1960s TV had been exactly as we eventually got it or had the "mods" I'm talking about here.
The impression I get from the way you describe your design is that that would not be true. What you've described would have the pylons obscuring the rest of the ship from view in a lot of angles and the neck doesn't need to be separated into two parts. If you really wanted it to be more stable-looking it could be like the neck of the 1701-D. The general shape of the ship would be lost in your design though.
ABSOLUTELY incorrect... the pylons would be FAR more like what we have in TOS than, say, what we have in TMP. I'm only suggesting making the overall length (in the direction of the flight vector of the ship) be about 2 1/2 times what we have now... that means increase the distance of the pylon leading edge forward by about .75 of the current pylon length, and extend the trailing edge backwards by the same amount.

By comparison, the TMP pylons are 1 1/2 times longer than TOS at the base, and about 3 1/4 times as long at the nacelle end. So... do THOSE pylons "obscure the rest of the ship?" Because they're a LOT larger (and more "obscuring") than what I suggested.

And as for the neck structure being what I propose... well... that's exactly what Probert did with the 1701-D, except he made it a big, solid structure. I dont' want a solid structure because that, unlike what I'm suggesting, would be "massive, big and bulky" and would "ruin the grace of the ship."

The dorsal structure I'm talking about would be TOTALLY UNCHANGED when viewed from the side. The ONLY think I'm talking about changing is going from one thin "fin" element between the same saucer and cigar we currently have, and replacing it with two nearly-identical (but slanted) "fin" elements

I'm finding the turn of this conversation to be UTTERLY AMAZING. To remind you guys... I'm one of the guys who is OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE DESIGN OF THE SHIP IN THIS MOVIE FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE OLD SERIES.

Got that? I would, by far, prefer to see the ship be a "polished" version of the TOS design (and I'm still not in any fashion convinced that we won't be getting that, at least in the "final portion of the film" incarnation).

So please stop acting like I just took a leak on the Venus De Milo... K?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 05:47 PM   #123
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Sheridan wrote: View Post
Ok, this might be a little off topic but what was the reason when designing the original Enterprise to have the saucer, secondary haul and warp drives separate from each other? I'm not suggesting that we change the design but wouldn't a design like the Romulan ship that we saw in TOS be more practical? This is one of the things I've never heard explained in the design process of the Enterprise.
The logic for the separate nacelles is simple enough... they're big, dangerous mechanisms and you want to keep that sort of thing separate from the inhabited spaces.

This is essentially the same argument for why they don't put the jet turbines on a 747 inside of the passenger compartment.

As for why the separate saucer and cigar... well, Jefferies played with a lot of different designs, and Roddenberry gave a lot of feedback... and the overall shape of the ship evolved over time. But the "in-universe" idea Jeffries gave was that the lower hull was where the engines and cargo and so forth would be... all the "utillities" and other dirty grubby stuff. While the saucer would be the living and "clean work" areas of the ship. Each would have different life-support requirements... one would be clean and quiet, the other would be dirty and noisy.

This didn't really get followed on the show, because they only had a few sets (and only ONE real "corridor set" after all!). But that was really the original idea... an "updown district" and a separate "warehouse/docks" district... plus some nasty, hazardous engines put as far away from where anyone has to live and work as possible.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 05:49 PM   #124
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
ABSOLUTELY incorrect... the pylons would be FAR more like what we have in TOS than, say, what we have in TMP. I'm only suggesting making the overall length (in the direction of the flight vector of the ship) be about 2 1/2 times what we have now... that means increase the distance of the pylon leading edge forward by about .75 of the current pylon length, and extend the trailing edge backwards by the same amount.

By comparison, the TMP pylons are 1 1/2 times longer than TOS at the base, and about 3 1/4 times as long at the nacelle end. So... do THOSE pylons "obscure the rest of the ship?" Because they're a LOT larger (and more "obscuring") than what I suggested.
You would make the pylons wider than the dorsal.
It would throw the whole design of balance - and LOOK LIKE CRAP.

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
The dorsal structure I'm talking about would be TOTALLY UNCHANGED when viewed from the side. The ONLY think I'm talking about changing is going from one thin "fin" element between the same saucer and cigar we currently have, and replacing it with two nearly-identical (but slanted) "fin" elements
Equally as ugly.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 05:55 PM   #125
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

ST-One wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Waitaminute... am I missing something, or aren't you one of the guys who was saying that the ship is GOING to look different in this new movie, and that you welcome the change?
I was.
I do.
Why the confusion?

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
I'm not saying I want to change the original at all... I see it as "established art" and as such I think it should be left alone. I only discussed what I'd have done differently AT THE TIME, had I been there in the mid-1960s working alongside MJ.
So, you do want to change 'established art'

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
And as for how any of that would "destroy the elegance" of the design... I don't agree in any way. SO... prove it. I'm not able to do the graphics stuff I'd need to right now, but later on, I might. But maybe you can do a quick markup of what you think I'm talking about and show us all how it would "look worse" while far more extensive changes were made for the TMP ship which you seem to like even MORE than you like the TOS ship (if memory serves).
I'm not going to put any effort in the sheer butchering of the Enterprise you would like to have done.

The changes made to the Enterprise for Phase II, and later TMP, made the design even more visually pleasing, more elegant - great work by great designers, who knew what they had to do to improve the design without destroying or disregarding it. They knew when they had to let form be form and to ignore function.
Okay, then... I get it.

This isn't about you wanting to discuss the topic. You're trying to pick a fight.

Third time in a little over a week (since I was posting my personal political thoughts in another discussion) that someone has tried to do that.

This happened once before, too. And that time I eventually let some folks get me mad through the "let's pick a fight with Cary and then all hit 'report' at once" game. And I got a single warning which resulted a supposed "one day ban" which nevertheless somehow "mistakenly" ended up lasting for about six weeks.


Knock it off. If you want to discuss the topic, fine... let's discuss. But if you want to just try to start a fight... which your post, above, makes VERY clear is the case... that's called "Trolling" and you need a warning for it.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:01 PM   #126
Eric Cheung
Fleet Captain
 
Eric Cheung's Avatar
 
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Then I must be confused by what you intend by your redesign (which I know you wouldn't prefer to the original ship). I guess I'd need to see it to see what you're talking about.
Eric Cheung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:41 PM   #127
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Eric Cheung wrote: View Post
Then I must be confused by what you intend by your redesign (which I know you wouldn't prefer to the original ship). I guess I'd need to see it to see what you're talking about.
No problem...

First, the side view. The pylons are longer, and thus more mechanically secure in the direction from which they'd be loaded when the ship accelerates or decellerates. The dorsal section looks identical from this perspective, so no "tweaks" are needed here.


Second, the front view. The pylons are the same thickness, so they'd be the same from this view of course. (I wouldn't object to adding a LITTLE more thickness to them, but I dont' think it's necessary)

However, instead of one vertical "dorsal" you now have a pair of sloped dorsals. They go from the centerline of the secondary hull to the ends of the impulse deck.


That would make for a far more mechanically robust ship, but the overall appearance would barely be affected at all.

By the way, I've done these using the Casimiro prints as my basis.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:46 PM   #128
Sheridan
Lieutenant
 
Sheridan's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Sheridan
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Eric Cheung wrote: View Post
Then I must be confused by what you intend by your redesign (which I know you wouldn't prefer to the original ship). I guess I'd need to see it to see what you're talking about.
No problem...

First, the side view. The pylons are longer, and thus more mechanically secure in the direction from which they'd be loaded when the ship accelerates or decellerates. The dorsal section looks identical from this perspective, so no "tweaks" are needed here.


Second, the front view. The pylons are the same thickness, so they'd be the same from this view of course. (I wouldn't object to adding a LITTLE more thickness to them, but I dont' think it's necessary)

However, instead of one vertical "dorsal" you now have a pair of sloped dorsals. They go from the centerline of the secondary hull to the ends of the impulse deck.


That would make for a far more mechanically robust ship, but the overall appearance would barely be affected at all.

By the way, I've done these using the Casimiro prints as my basis.
Nice work, but wouldn't it be a bit awkward for the turbolifts to go down the necks at that slanted angle?
Sheridan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:49 PM   #129
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Sheridan wrote: View Post
Nice work, but wouldn't it be a bit awkward for the turbolifts to go down the necks at that slanted angle?
No need. Remember, this is in SPACE... all gravity is artificial gravity, remember? Just because everything we're used to seeing in Trek ships has all the decks on the same plane doesn't mean that there's ANY reason that has to be the case, does it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:55 PM   #130
tharpdevenport
Admiral
 
tharpdevenport's Avatar
 
Location: Click here for super karate monkey death MOD porn!
View tharpdevenport's Twitter Profile
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Bashir007 wrote: View Post
People have been complaining that they want the Enterprise\Bridge\uniforms to look like they did on TOS. Here is visual evidence that improving it and mondernizing it is a great thing and why I feel it will be a great looking film at the very least.








I don't see the proof. I see NEW bad ideas.
__________________
Mr. Signature
Number 2 "Are you going to run?"
Number 6 "Like blazes! The first chance I get."
-Smile! God Loves You! Too bad he doesn't exist, oh and everyone else thinks you're an asshole.
tharpdevenport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:55 PM   #131
Sheridan
Lieutenant
 
Sheridan's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Sheridan
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Sheridan wrote: View Post
Nice work, but wouldn't it be a bit awkward for the turbolifts to go down the necks at that slanted angle?
No need. Remember, this is in SPACE... all gravity is artificial gravity, remember? Just because everything we're used to seeing in Trek ships has all the decks on the same plane doesn't mean that there's ANY reason that has to be the case, does it?
I'm aware of artificial gravity but I didn't know you could change it in specific parts of the ship without affecting the rest of the ship. What about having simply one wide and thick neck not like the ugly Galaxy class but like the Excelsior class?
Sheridan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 06:56 PM   #132
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Sheridan wrote: View Post
I'm aware of artificial gravity but I didn't know you could change it in specific parts of the ship without affecting the rest of the ship. What about having simply one wide and thick neck not like the ugly Galaxy class but like the Excelsior class?
You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 07:04 PM   #133
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Waitaminute... am I missing something, or aren't you one of the guys who was saying that the ship is GOING to look different in this new movie, and that you welcome the change?
I was.
I do.
Why the confusion?



So, you do want to change 'established art'

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
And as for how any of that would "destroy the elegance" of the design... I don't agree in any way. SO... prove it. I'm not able to do the graphics stuff I'd need to right now, but later on, I might. But maybe you can do a quick markup of what you think I'm talking about and show us all how it would "look worse" while far more extensive changes were made for the TMP ship which you seem to like even MORE than you like the TOS ship (if memory serves).
I'm not going to put any effort in the sheer butchering of the Enterprise you would like to have done.

The changes made to the Enterprise for Phase II, and later TMP, made the design even more visually pleasing, more elegant - great work by great designers, who knew what they had to do to improve the design without destroying or disregarding it. They knew when they had to let form be form and to ignore function.
Okay, then... I get it.

This isn't about you wanting to discuss the topic. You're trying to pick a fight.

Third time in a little over a week (since I was posting my personal political thoughts in another discussion) that someone has tried to do that.

This happened once before, too. And that time I eventually let some folks get me mad through the "let's pick a fight with Cary and then all hit 'report' at once" game. And I got a single warning which resulted a supposed "one day ban" which nevertheless somehow "mistakenly" ended up lasting for about six weeks.


Knock it off. If you want to discuss the topic, fine... let's discuss. But if you want to just try to start a fight... which your post, above, makes VERY clear is the case... that's called "Trolling" and you need a warning for it.


Don't be so full of yourself.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 07:05 PM   #134
Sheridan
Lieutenant
 
Sheridan's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Sheridan
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Sheridan wrote: View Post
I'm aware of artificial gravity but I didn't know you could change it in specific parts of the ship without affecting the rest of the ship. What about having simply one wide and thick neck not like the ugly Galaxy class but like the Excelsior class?
You could do that but, to my sense of style, that would be less graceful.
It may look a little less graceful but wouldn't it more practical? The neck doesn't have to be black either like the Excelsior's. It could be the same color as the rest of the ship.
Sheridan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2008, 07:06 PM   #135
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Visual Proof a Resdesign is a good thing

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
batman, batmobile, metaphorical nipples

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.